Article in New Yorker; Long Thread Today on Jezebel.com

[Soxfan Mom]

I get The New Yorker but haven't received this issue yet. I'm old school about my New Yorker and refuse to read it online. However, I can get the gist from this thread on Jezebel. Most of the responses were more positive than I would have imagined for what is basically a "guilty pleasure" site (at least for me).

http://jezebel.com/5129536/milky-way...yline=true&s=x

[NicaG]

That article in the New Yorker was really interesting (I just finished reading it while nursing dd to sleep). Anyone else read it? I think it's such a good point that we've allowed the whole issue of maternity leave/breastfeeding as a public health good to be framed in terms of the scientifically provable benefits of the breastmilk itself, rather than the greater good of breastfeeding as a relationship between mother and child, not just the relationship between the child and the breastmilk. And so breastfeeding has turned into another opportunity to peddle merchandise (breast pumps) and reward tax breaks (to companies that provide pumping rooms to employees). When we could instead, as a society, promote breastfeeding by providing better maternity leave and daycare policies.

[dirtgirl]

Yes! I just read it too, and I thought it was such a good article. We are so focused on our rights around breastfeeding as it relates to working because we have such crappy maternity leave and childcare support. Of course we need supportive work environments and support for pumping in general, but we seem to be afraid to "go for the gold"... which in this case is PAID MATERNITY LEAVE.

Who's got the stats on just how behind we are as compared to the rest of the civilized world?

[NicaG]

So ironic, too, that many companies and organizations who provide "pumping rooms" do not allow mothers to nurse their children in these rooms!

[rivkah]

I read it, and I thought it was great--well-written and interesting. She brings up some excellent points regarding employers only way of accommodating mothering is to provide time/room for pumping.

[frogautumn]

I agree with all of you. I read the article last night but was hesitant to post my thoughts because I needed time to digest.
I found the historical review very interesting...but ultimately, the current implications left me feeling very sad.

Sure, it is progress to accommodate pumping moms and reward the companies that do so, but it would be truly wonderful to see longer, paid maternity leave. Don't some european countries have 1 year (or longer) maternity leaves?

Also, (and I absolutely don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just speaking from personal experience) I wonder if the materialistic nature of our culture here is getting in the way. Several of the women in my family felt like they needed to go back to work to keep their families afloat (however, "afloat" in this situation meant keeping up with the Joneses) and scoffed at my decision to stay home though it meant living a very modest lifestyle. But perhaps I'm just projecting on that point...

[terese17]

I really wish I could remember where I read this but I dont, it was just within the past few days. For gov't paid maternity leave, Sweden is the first the 68 weeks and the bottom three countries were England, Japan and the U.S. Japan and England at 14 weeks and the U.S. at ZERO!!!!!!!!!!! I dont know if this was out of industrialized nations or what, because I'm sure that would matter.

[terese17]

First of all, government paid is not employer paid. I dont think anyone is expected their workplaces to come up with cash magically for something that in almost every other country the government pays for.
I wanted to add that the other countries that have such a long paid maternity leave are also socialist countries that have much bigger gov't, mch higher taxes and less population than the US does. I dont know anything about the canadian gov't on this one.

When I worked my employer was great about giving me the breaks needed to pump, and sometimes depending on who was babysitting my son, they would bring him to me to nurse. there were comments made occiasionally by other employees about why I was so special that i recieved extra break time, but that was quickly dispelled with a response about the smoking breaks that were also offered.

[clutterbug]

Originally Posted by terese17

First of all, government paid is not employer paid. I dont think anyone is expected their workplaces to come up with cash magically for something that in almost every other country the government pays for.
I wanted to add that the other countries that have such a long paid maternity leave are also socialist countries that have much bigger gov't, mch higher taxes and less population than the US does. I dont know anything about the canadian gov't on this one.
.

Ah, the socialist word crops up again...another discussion, I guess.

Anyway, Canada's program is government-paid parental leave of 35 weeks, and another 17 weeks of maternity leave (so the mom takes the 17 weeks, and both parents can split up the remaining 35 weeks however they like...much of the time, mom takes the whole year but there are lots of families that work it differently, and in some families with a SAHP, the WOHP takes all.some of the leave so that both parents are home for a while). Maternity leave is paid under the Employment Insurance program, so you are making the same as you would if you lost your job (60% of your income, up to a max of 435 a week). Some employers top-up to 75% or even 90% of your salary so that you lose less income. Many don't, though - they are only required by law to hold your job for you, not to pay any extra allowances.

I thought the article was very interesting, thanks to OP for providing the link!

[annettemarie]

Closed pending review.

[annettemarie]

I'm so sorry, mamas. I meant to reopen this last night, but I forgot. Then I meant to open it this afternoon, but I forgot. And then I meant to open it early this evening, and forgot.

But it's open now.

Several posts that were outside the scope of the Lactivism forum were removed.

[dewi]

I praise Ms Lepore and The New Yorker for publishing this article, it's all brilliant.
This is Absolutely the best article about breastmilk, breastfeeding and women's contemporary lives as working mothers that I have ever read in the mainstream press.

[Da WIC Lady]

This was a great article pointing out where we need improvement, but gave no avenues to push for change. A great organization that is working on the issues surrounding modern motherhood and making ours a family (and breastfeeding) friendly counrty is momsrising.org. I've never been a big fan of NOW, and while it's great that they are pushing for pump stations in workplaces, as usual, they forget about those of us at home as if you have to be employeed outside the home to count as a real woman.

[Soxfan Mom]

Originally Posted by Da WIC Lady

This was a great article pointing out where we need improvement, but gave no avenues to push for change. A great organization that is working on the issues surrounding modern motherhood and making ours a family (and breastfeeding) friendly counrty is momsrising.org. I've never been a big fan of NOW, and while it's great that they are pushing for pump stations in workplaces, as usual, they forget about those of us at home as if you have to be employeed outside the home to count as a real woman.

I agree. I heard Ms. Lepore on NPR yesterday. I received my New Yorker and finally got around to reading the story (like I said, I have to read New Yorker pieces in the actual magazine). After the piece on NPR, I was filled with a feeling of frustration. I think we as mothers? a society? are sometimes guilty of overthinking things. I brought my pump to work for three babies, probably a total of 4 years pumping. Honestly, and I know I am in a very flexible workplace, the politics of the situation never even crossed my mind. Quite simply, it gave me a time to take a nice break (and read The New Yorker!) and I didn't have to spend a cent on artificial baby milk.

When I was pumping for my first baby, I worked in a white-collar environment that was 99 percent male. Many of the men were fathers and their wives had breastfed, so they didn't bat an eye at me leaving to pump. But when I gave notice to take a job with hours that meshed better with motherhood, my boss joked that it was the last time he'd hire a straight woman because we all eventually go off and have babies. His tongue was firmly in cheek, but I believe when a person is sarcastic like that, they are revealing something of their true feelings. Anyway, I worry that if companies are mandated to offer X amount of leave, etc., as I think is Ms. Lepore's viewpoint, we might find it harder to get a job as women of childbearing age. Not that we'd be able to prove it, but I saw for myself that there is a glimmer of that attitude out there.

[Da WIC Lady]

Originally Posted by Soxfan Mom

I agree. I heard Ms. Lepore on NPR yesterday. I received my New Yorker and finally got around to reading the story (like I said, I have to read New Yorker pieces in the actual magazine). After the piece on NPR, I was filled with a feeling of frustration. I think we as mothers? a society? are sometimes guilty of overthinking things. I brought my pump to work for three babies, probably a total of 4 years pumping. Honestly, and I know I am in a very flexible workplace, the politics of the situation never even crossed my mind. Quite simply, it gave me a time to take a nice break (and read The New Yorker!) and I didn't have to spend a cent on artificial baby milk.

When I was pumping for my first baby, I worked in a white-collar environment that was 99 percent male. Many of the men were fathers and their wives had breastfed, so they didn't bat an eye at me leaving to pump. But when I gave notice to take a job with hours that meshed better with motherhood, my boss joked that it was the last time he'd hire a straight woman because we all eventually go off and have babies. His tongue was firmly in cheek, but I believe when a person is sarcastic like that, they are revealing something of their true feelings. Anyway, I worry that if companies are mandated to offer X amount of leave, etc., as I think is Ms. Lepore's viewpoint, we might find it harder to get a job as women of childbearing age. Not that we'd be able to prove it, but I saw for myself that there is a glimmer of that attitude out there.

The discrimination against working mothers is already evident in the average pay gap vs men. Single women earn $.90, married mothers $.73 and single mothers between $.56-66 to a man's $1.00 doing the same job with the same qualifications.

Dr. Shelley Correll’s groundbreaking research released in 2005 is a compelling addition to the long line of studies that explore the roots of this maternal wage gap. This study, like others, also found that the wage gap wasn’t linked to selflimiting factors that might cause a wage gap, like mothers taking more time off to care for children, but in actuality is fairly straightforward discrimination. In other words, it’s not mothers’ “fault” they receive less pay.

The basic findings: Mothers are 44 percent less likely to be hired than non-mothers for the same job given the exact same resume and experience for the two groups of women (mothers and non-mothers). Her study also found that mothers are offered significantly lower starting pay. Study participants offered nonmothers an average of $11,000 more than mothers for the same high salaried job as equally qualified non-mothers.

(http://www.momsrising.org/manifesto/chapter7)

Add to this government mandates and pumping station requirements in the current employment climate might spell disaster. A lot more has to change in the workplace for motherhood to be respected and family friendly initiatives to truly work for families.

I'm sorry that you were discriminated against like that. There is no excuse for that sort of behavior.

[BaBaBa]

Sounds really interesting!
I'll have to get DH to pick one up for me.

[dewi]

American mothers are expected to go back to work too soon.
That is the problem in a nutshell and it is unsolvable, unless gov gets involved, or you opt out of the corporate workforce.

Inhumane and abusive to women to only have 12 weeks maternity leave. (I own a postpartum doula service) I have corporate executive clients who had to go back to work in 8-10 weeks, others stuck on the phone and emailing work related documents days after giving birth.

Women are not choosing to live like this, they have no choice unless they quit their corporate jobs. Pumping at work is respite for women, a wanted connection with their baby a few times during the day.

We still have a long way to go before we're not viewed as a liability to a corporation when we are of childbearing are. I feel really bad to the op who received the comment to her face. I know it is said behind women's back. My father used to talk about how horribe corporations are to women all the time (corporate accountant) and how discriminatory the company hired.
This is all a Dirty not so secret practice of the corporate world.

A client from my service was going on an interview for a tenure track professor position and she was told DO NOT let them know you just had a baby three months ago. It was made clear to her by all in academia that New baby=liability to getting the tennure track position.


We are facing only sub-par options for childcare, pumping milk etc.
The quandry for American women who want to breastfeed is overwhelming, the article was certainly not a push for tax breaks, there to be informative of the quandary women face every day.

A humane maternal/paternity leave as other first world countries have would go a long way to solving some of our family problems.




oh my, Was that a rant

[dewi]

Originally Posted by BaBaBa

Sounds really interesting!
I'll have to get DH to pick one up for me.

read it on line

All New Yorker articles are very well written and v e r y long.
Read the whole article you will realize she is just being informative of the quandary women face and a social comment on the pumped milk and the substitution of baby at the breast.

[BaBaBa]

Originally Posted by dewi

read it on line

All New Yorker articles are very well written and v e r y long.
Read the whole article you will realize she is just being informative of the quandary women face and a social comment on the pumped milk and the substitution of baby at the breast.

Oh thank you....I know I just do love reading the magazine and DH happens to be in the city today and can get one for me. I'll be interested to see what the letters to the editor responses are in the coming weeks.

[dewi]

Originally Posted by BaBaBa

. I'll be interested to see what the letters to the editor responses are in the coming weeks.

You can submit a question or comment to the author on the website. I wrote her nice note thanking her for such a good article.

Letters that get published to the editor in the New Yorker are usually pithy and smart. Definitely not sensationalist or antagonist.

If we follow bf statistics, the people who read that magazine would be demographically the "exclusively breastfeeding" and then the beyond six months breastfeeding group.