The New Yorker Article - Page 2

[BaBaBa]

Originally Posted by rparker

I'm a SAHM, but that last sentence in particular really irritated me; it seems designed to incite feelings of guilt in pumping moms and/or to devalue the sacrifice they're making for their babies. The tone of the entire paragraph downplays both the dangers of formula and the benefits of bf-ing. It also totally ignores the necessity of pumping to maintain supply while away from baby.

That sentence also had a great impact on me but I think the author raises a valid point. I can imagine a mother debating that to herself. If she has to work later to make up for her frequent pumpings and as a consequence, spend less time with her baby it's a real temptation to ditch the pump. It's a sacrifice no matter how you look at it. Lose lose for the working mums

[bri276]

Originally Posted by rparker

I enjoyed the information on bf history, but the end of the article made me uneasy, particularly this paragraph:

(emphasis mine)

I'm a SAHM, but that last sentence in particular really irritated me; it seems designed to incite feelings of guilt in pumping moms and/or to devalue the sacrifice they're making for their babies. The tone of the entire paragraph downplays both the dangers of formula and the benefits of bf-ing. It also totally ignores the necessity of pumping to maintain supply while away from baby.

that quote really bothered me too because the point of pumping rights in the workplace are so that women shouldn't have to make choices like that! they should have the breaks they need to pump AND not have to stay late to make up for them!

how about mothers like mine? my mom was a resident when I was born (she's a pediatrician now). she was certainly neither willing nor able to cut off her career to stay home and bf all day. she pumped and I was bf and bottlefed breastmilk for over a year. the pump is a great tool to continue to bf when you have to, or WANT to, work.

I am a SAHM btw. I just really don't get the whole tone of this article. I completely agree with her on many points, but think a discussion of how to get better maternity leave would be much more useful than disparaging the way women work hard to make bf'ing work while WOH and the fact that companies have rightly been pressured to accommodate them. It's slow progress, but it's something. Even if we get a year maternity leave, some women would still want/need to pump at work and those rights need to be in place.

[BaBaBa]

...or maybe we need to consider the wet nurse making a comeback?

[bluetoes]

Originally Posted by BaBaBa

I'm curious because I'm a SAHM.... the guilt is because you aren't home with your baby or because they're drinking from a bottle instead of your breast?

In this hypothetical situation it would be neither of those two things. It is just worry I won't able to continue to balance work with getting enough milk pumped and of course rather than telling myself am doing the best I can I feel like a bad mother. I was like this over other things when my son was born.

I wouldn't/didn't feel guilty about working (good thing we have no choice!) or him having milk from a bottle. There is just something about producing enough milk that can inspire guilt.

[bluetoes]

Originally Posted by BaBaBa

...or maybe we need to consider the wet nurse making a comeback?

Oh goodness no. Unless it was an emergency or just a rare occasion, the only person who will nurse my child would be me. A wet nurse would be a bit 'The Hand that Rocks the Cradle' for me. Nursing is a special relationship between mother and child in my opinion.

[rivkah]

I have to defend this article.

I am not sure it is really being read in the right context. It is an issue-raising article, really, not an advocacy article. She is raising some very important issues. As a full-time working mother, expecting an infant in the next couple of months, she is voicing many of the concerns that I have. She is pointing out that in this country, we have focused narrowly on one solution to the challenge of declining breastfeeding rates among working mothers. She is NOT saying that pumping is bad or the wrong solution. She is saying that it is an incomplete solution. I agree with her that we would be better off with longer maternity leaves and more flexible work arrangements.

I work in a setting where returning to work full-time after 12 weeks, and pumping for 6 months-1 year while baby is in day care IS the norm. I actually can't think of anyone who has had a baby in the past couple of years in my office who hasn't done this. I represent white-collar America, and I imagine this is the same world that the author is familiar with. I am sure it is much different in different settings, and perhaps she overstated the frequency of pumping a bit much.

I actually thought her point about formula feeding and getting home an hour earlier is really valid. Personally, I would do a whole lot to avoid artificial formula, but I also know how incredibly hard it is to be away from your baby. The author is not saying that one should stop pumping and get home earlier, she is saying that this is a valid consideration in the decisions women make about BF and formula feeding. I think that she was making EXACTLY the point that a previous poster was making--that a woman should not have to make this choice, but it is a real one. I am in that exact position, as are most salaried workers. We can take 8 pump breaks a day if we need to, but we may end up working 12 hours a day to get our work done. Of course, you can sometimes manage to get things done while pumping, but not always, and it does take time.

Personally, I share many of her concerns about not being home as many hours as I should with my baby, even if I will provide BM as her exclusive source of nutrition for as long as needed. However, I don't feel guilty. For what? Not living in Sweden? Working so that we can pay our bills and buy food and provide for our children's education? I personally use every opportunity I have in my workplace to push for longer maternity leave and for flexible schedules. I am a low-woman on the totem pole right now, but I do what I can. I also vote for candidates who support positions that would allow parents to work less and care for their children more. That is just going to have to do for now, though DD is hoping to run for president someday, so I will do my best there!

[BaBaBa]

Originally Posted by rivkah

I have to defend this article.

I am not sure it is really being read in the right context. It is an issue-raising article, really, not an advocacy article. She is raising some very important issues. As a full-time working mother, expecting an infant in the next couple of months, she is voicing many of the concerns that I have. She is pointing out that in this country, we have focused narrowly on one solution to the challenge of declining breastfeeding rates among working mothers. She is NOT saying that pumping is bad or the wrong solution. She is saying that it is an incomplete solution. I agree with her that we would be better off with longer maternity leaves and more flexible work arrangements.

I work in a setting where returning to work full-time after 12 weeks, and pumping for 6 months-1 year while baby is in day care IS the norm. I actually can't think of anyone who has had a baby in the past couple of years in my office who hasn't done this. I represent white-collar America, and I imagine this is the same world that the author is familiar with. I am sure it is much different in different settings, and perhaps she overstated the frequency of pumping a bit much.

I actually thought her point about formula feeding and getting home an hour earlier is really valid. Personally, I would do a whole lot to avoid artificial formula, but I also know how incredibly hard it is to be away from your baby. The author is not saying that one should stop pumping and get home earlier, she is saying that this is a valid consideration in the decisions women make about BF and formula feeding. I think that she was making EXACTLY the point that a previous poster was making--that a woman should not have to make this choice, but it is a real one. I am in that exact position, as are most salaried workers. We can take 8 pump breaks a day if we need to, but we may end up working 12 hours a day to get our work done. Of course, you can sometimes manage to get things done while pumping, but not always, and it does take time.

Personally, I share many of her concerns about not being home as many hours as I should with my baby, even if I will provide BM as her exclusive source of nutrition for as long as needed. However, I don't feel guilty. For what? Not living in Sweden? Working so that we can pay our bills and buy food and provide for our children's education? I personally use every opportunity I have in my workplace to push for longer maternity leave and for flexible schedules. I am a low-woman on the totem pole right now, but I do what I can. I also vote for candidates who support positions that would allow parents to work less and care for their children more. That is just going to have to do for now, though DD is hoping to run for president someday, so I will do my best there!

Excellent insight!
Thank you for sharing.

[rparker]

Originally Posted by rivkah

I have to defend this article.

I am not sure it is really being read in the right context. It is an issue-raising article, really, not an advocacy article. She is raising some very important issues. As a full-time working mother, expecting an infant in the next couple of months, she is voicing many of the concerns that I have. She is pointing out that in this country, we have focused narrowly on one solution to the challenge of declining breastfeeding rates among working mothers. She is NOT saying that pumping is bad or the wrong solution. She is saying that it is an incomplete solution. I agree with her that we would be better off with longer maternity leaves and more flexible work arrangements.

I would agree with your assessment if it weren't for the article's last few paragraphs. Language, tone, and word choice all matter. In some ways they matter more than the actual content of what the author is trying to say because they have such a strong influence on the reader's perception of the topic being discussed.

The manner in which those last few paragraphs are written not only serves to further normalize formula as an acceptable choice, but it presents pumping as being somewhat absurd. It doesn't matter how poor of a "solution" pumping is, it's a better alternative than formula feeding and the article doesn't really make this clear. I really became optimistic when the author discussed the problem with maternity leave policies in the U.S., which is why I was so disappointed by the article's conclusion which instead of reiterating the need for changes in maternity leave policies instead focuses on "wow it's kind of bad and absurd that we have to pump"... not helpful.

Furthermore, I think that it's really important to keep in mind who comprises the author's audience. The readership of the New Yorker is not made up exclusively of working mothers, pumping mothers, lactivists, or breastfeeding mothers. It is read by men, childless women, pregnant women, in fact I'd go as far to say that the majority of people reading the New Yorker will never have firsthand, personal experience with the article's subject. This article may be one of the first (or only) contacts they have with breastfeeding and/or pumping. I don't think that this article adequately explains why women breastfeed, why they pump, or why they should be supported in both endeavors. I'm a recovering English major, so I'm probably overly sensitive to the nuances of the way things are written... but I bet that also describes a great deal of the readership of the New Yorker as well

I'm also probably an extremist when it comes to issues concerning bf-ing... as in I believe that it is extremely important for it to become normalized and for formula feeding to be regulated to a tool to be used in situations of "worst case scenario"/medical necessity rather than as a matter of "choice" or convenience. I do realize that women are often placed in situations where social/economic conditions force them to either completely formula feed or to supplement for non-medical reasons, but I also feel that it is the responsibility of compassionate, thinking women to work to change the culture so that some day mothers won't be placed in that position. The author of the New Yorker article came close to doing that, but fell short by becoming wrapped up in a tone of irony/cynicism/absurdity which may gain her stylistic points but does little for feminism.

[Deir]

I liked the article. It's a tricky subject. In my counseling, I always find that moms are so eager to pump even when it isn't necessary. It is almost like,"I bought this $300 thing, so I better use it" it is as if the pump encourages some separation some times. thatt being said, I spend an awful lot of time convincing moms why it is worthwhile for them to spend the time pumping at work becuase it allows them to extend the breastfeeding relationship.

[AstridS]

Originally Posted by krystyn33

Things get done here when there is a bunch of money behind the initiative (or money to be made). A mother stepping out of the workforce to be with her child and nurse directly is not supported financially (who is going to gain economically directly from this?) and there is little money to be made (compared to purchasing pumps, bottles, etc.). Money is the bottom line, IMO, but then there's also the fact that bottle feeding is so deeply entrenched in our culture and there's the whole "mommy wars" defensive guilt conflict which gets played up when anyone urges an exploration of the benefits of mothers staying home with their infants--including the benefits of breast over expressed milk in a bottle, etc. (And my highest regards go out to pumping moms--it is a lot of work and so much love goes into that great effort!) We need a cultural shift to take place to garner more support for keeping mothers and infants together--for too few women this is a matter of choice rather than survival.

I enjoyed the article so much--I don't think the author so much took a stand as posed the difficult questions.

I think this is linked to the way health care is run in the US vs. the way it is run here.
We have socialized medicin and live in a cold, wet climate. That means that a lot of babies and toddlers are sick every winter. And that costs a lot of money. Not only for the workplaces that have to pay the parents wages (we get time off with wages if our children are sick), but also for the state, because they have to pay for doctors visits and so on. So babies and childrens health is very important to those in charge. Also, breastfeeding is important to decrease the rates of breast cancer. And cancer is a huge strain on state finances right now. So over here, I think breastfeeding is cost-efficiant.

[krystyn33]

It is the fact that this article was in the New Yorker that makes me think of it as a cultural/social examination piece, rather than one to provide general information about breastfeeding/pumping, etc.

The problem she poses is a difficult one: we know that breastmilk is superior to formula (at least this should be accepted as common fact by the generally well educated audience of this magazine), and despite evidence to support that nursing at the breast has benefits over bottle feeding breast milk, our culture has little support for mothers staying with their infants versus pumping and bottle feeding (which I agree could have more support than it does). You can see in responses here how the guilt and defensiveness makes exploring these tough questions prohibitive, questions without clear answers like is it better for a child to be bottle fed expressed breastmilk by an emotionally distant stranger with or formula fed with a lact-aid in the loving arms of his mother? I can't even answer that one. The full range of psychological and health benefits of babies remaining in care of their mothers, nursing at the breast has yet to be fully explored and established because any assertion of such claims is met with defensive outrage. (And like I said before, there's no industry in the position to directly profit from these claims to put money behind research and promotion.)

I agree that we should be marching the streets demanding paid leave so that staying at home to nurse infants is a viable option for more women. (I'm not saying that moms don't need breaks, but how different is that from being away 40+ hours a week?) And I'm in no way disparaging moms who pump, moms who must FF or moms who are unable for health or other reasons to nurse at the breast--your loving efforts are commendable and
I honor that. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't refrain from asking questions and getting the facts out of fear of guilt, and we need to keep this guilt from dividing us so that we can act together to make paid maternity leave and other social support for breastfeeding a reality. For this to happen it needs to come from us, from mothers across social and cultural barriers in this country--no one is going to speak up and make it happen on our behalf.

[betsyj]

Many of us live in a country that pays great lip service to family values but falls far short of actually putting those values into practice.

This society is very good at mistaking stop gap measures as real solutions. Pumping is a stop gap method for many of us. I work full time and pump so my son can continue to be exclusively bf at daycare. Do I wish it were different? Do I wish I did not need the health insurance that comes with my job because of my son's medical issues? YOU BET!!

Until we can depend on affordable health care not tied to employment many of us are forced to choose between two very hard choices-the financial well being of our families or the emotional well being of our infants.

I think this article seems incomplete to many of us because the problems are so myriad.

Ah not even sure what I am trying to say, other then I have thought about this article a lot.

[RomanCarmelMom]

My ability to breastfeed was saved by a pump, and I agree that this article isn't anti-pumping. It's really making me rethink the way I view pumps. I've often heard the phrase "you should just pump ahead" as a reason that women shouldn't NIP. The pump does allow, to some extent, for the actual breast to remain taboo when it comes to breastfeeding. I know that pumps allow for many mothers to continue to provide milk for their babies while they're at work, but at the same time, the pump is what allows a lot of companies to not allow employees to go nurse their babies throughout the day, or to bring them to the office.

It's not the pump's fault, but maybe we are allowing it to be used as an excuse to deny better maternity leave, to deny a baby's right to NIP, etc.

One of my biggest complaints when my son was an infant was that we spent a fortune on pumps, supplementers, and other breastfeeding aids. Breastfeeding ended up being more expensive for us than bottlefeeding from the start would have been. We should be careful not to fall for "breastfeeding promotion" when it is really just pumping promotion, because there is a profit to be made from pumping, but not necessarily from breastfeeding.

Pumps and other accessories did save my ability to breastfeed, but I appreciate that this article brought up some other issues concerning pumping that I had never thought of before.

[Megan73]

Well put, Krystyn.
The article really made me try to unpick why it's so important to me that my babe get all his food at my breast – even some of it is formula in a Lact Aid because I have unexplained low supply. I'm in Canada and am taking a year long combination of maternity and parental leave from a job I love, often miss and am wondering how I'll possibly do with a child at home. Yet I can't bring myself to give my kid even one bottle after overcoming the feelings of sadness and failure that I couldn't produce enough milk for him.
Meanwhile, the mom just across the border had no choice but to go back to work at 12 weeks, pumps all day and – in my experience with US friends – feels just as strongly that her babe will ONLY get BM, much of it in a bottle.
I think we all feel angry and defensive when when we feel like our best just isn't good enough – I know I feel under attack when I read all the post demonizing formula.
All this to say it was a really good article that unearthed some difficult emotional terrain about mothering, breastfeeding and how best to support all women who want to do the best for their babies.

[spedteacher30]

what I took from it was that before formula, a certain segment of the population did not nurse their babies. they paid wet nurses to do it.

a number of researchers pushed for women to nurse their babies themselves, because the act of nursing was important.

Now, we have allowed the pump to replace the mom for many women, and are focused just on the substance of breastmilk, all the while ignoring the importance of the act of nursing.

Some of my work involves helping nursing moms get pumping accommodations while working. I myself am a retired extended pumper, so I get the importance of pumping, but I also know that at least for me and the women I have worked with, pumping represents more than just providing nutrition to your child while you are working. Pumping represents providing a piece of yourself to your child while you are working. And, for the women I have worked with (and in retrospect for myself) we all would have been better served by better maternity leave rather than pumping protection. But, because pumping is an option, companies and the government are ignoring the real issue, which is having moms and babies spend more time together. This holds true for WOHM and SAHM (think about the number of times women are told they can't bring a babe in arms with them to a meeting, appointment or event).

As we as lactivists push for pumping protection, we are ignoring the original push for nursing, which was moms providing milk at their breasts, not at the breast of another woman.