Nursing: Nuisance or Necessity....or it is the answer more Nuanced?

(Aren't you proud of my catchy title?)


I've recently seen lots of chatter on the mommy blogs and such and I've had some personal conversations on this article from the April Atlantic Monthly. The author refutes the common belief that breastfeeding is sooo much better for your baby and claims that women who do not breastfeed are being oppressed. Since I consider myself to be a breast-feeding advocate, you might be surprised to know that I did agree, to a degree, with her general point. But I found myself wanting to discuss the topic more so I'm blogging about it.


We would all say that any mother wants the best for her baby, but we cannot possibly give, nor would we want to give, our child the absolute "best" in everything. It's physically, emotionally, spiritually, and relationally impossible. We have other children, a husband, a home, friends, jobs, other family that need our resources and attention too. Granted, giving our attention to these other things often benefits the baby as well but the point I'm trying to make is that there at least exists some things we have to do that prevent us from being the child's all in all and making his or her life perfect. At the risk of reducing motherhood to an economic exercise, I must say that mothers do a cost-benefit analysis for many things, including breastfeeding.

My thinking up until reading the article was that yes, there are definitely circumstances where a mother cannot breastfeed and I was fine with that. I would never judge someone (or even worse, say something to a woman on the street) simply because she wasn't breastfeeding because I didn't know her story. Maybe she couldn't for a good reason or maybe the cost-benefit analysis came up really heavy on the cost side. But I guess I thought and still continue to think to some degree, that the costs do have to be pretty heavy to not breastfeed. The article, convincingly, I think, states that the health benefits to breastfeeding are more marginal than we think. Thus, the benefits side of the cost benefit analysis is lower so I guess I'm coming around to thinking that the cost side wouldn't have to be as high to warrant someone to make the decision not to breastfeed. But it is hard to give up the thinking that (almost) every mother should breastfeed. I think the author is somewhat conflicted herself since she has continued to breastfeed even though she calls it stressful and alienating.


I also have feelings of personal accomplishment that my son and so far my daughter have never had to drink a drop of formula despite some common nursing obstacles. And I admire women who have stuck it out through more difficult circumstances than mine. So in a world where motherhood lacks many things that the society as a whole considers admirable, I guess I'm having a hard time saying these accomplishments are not so great after all. Sure, we can still say the fortitude was admirable, but if you work really hard for something that wasn't that worth-while, you are still seen as being a fool. Okay, so maybe that's going a little too far but I admit, I'm still having a hard time conceding that the nursing accomplishments are anything less than heroic, but I guess that's my own pride.


Speaking of which, here is my stockpile that I had built up before I went back to work. I had almost, but not quite, a gallon of milk frozen at the time and I think I still have about that much. I've been able to replace what I've used.

The author of the article mocked this type of showing off along with discussions about how much milk one could pump at a sitting. I think it's fun actually. The author mocked a lot of things like saying that a benefit of breastfeeding is better smelling poop. While these things didn't significantly move my decision toward breastfeeding, I do consider them added bonuses.

Where I more strongly diverge from her opinion is when she talks about how breastfeeding is a painstaking chore. In her experience and in the experiences of a lot of women that she spoke to, breastfeeding seemed much more like an obligation than what has been my experience and the experience of a lot of women I talk to. I think breastfeeding is actually EASIER and more convenient. That and the fact that it's cheaper are the main reasons that I breastfeed so I'm not moved so much by the article's agruments that the health benefits aren't as promenient as we are lead to believe. Even if it was shown that formula was marginally better for your baby, I would probably still breastfeed because of the convenience and cost.

The author takes issue with a few of these reasons so I'm going to take issue with her counter-arguments. She claims that breastfeed is not convenient because it causes a mother to basically be stuck at home or be banished out of the room so she can breastfeed. Although I must admit I did feel like I was stuck at home a few times when Dylan was little, it never got the point where I felt it was oppressive. And even if I had, Dylan grew out of that phase quickly and I also adapted so I could still go out and do things. Lots of times if I needed to be "banished" from a room, I would either enjoy the quiet time or take a female friend with me to talk while I'm nursing. I can see where another woman might have more issues with having to "leave the party" but I don't think that's the case for all women which was the argument the author was making. It may be an issue for some women but don't list it as a negative for breastfeeding in all cases. The author complained about breastfeeding advocates listing positives that didn't seem to apply to her so she should take her own advice and realize that a women's personality plays deeply into whether this aspect of breastfeeding is a positive or a negative. A more objective measure of convenience is the time it takes to prepare the milk versus formula. Breastfeeding clear wins there since you don't have to warm it up and you don't have to worry about forgetting to pack it (and all the stuff like bottles and water and cold packs) to take it along with you. That is a lot less hassle than finding a private place to nurse.

She also cites a fairness issue because the father can't feed and console the baby so most of the baby care is left to the women. This one really annoys me. You can't blame breastfeeding if men aren't fulfilling their responsibilities of parenthood! If the mother is overwhelmed with baby care and is feeling consternation toward her husband for not doing more then that's a problem that needs to be worked out but one that should be independent of the choice to breastfeed or not.

Then lastly, cost. The numbers depend on a lot of things and are probably exaggerated by some but I think a safe bet is about $1000-1200 for the first year. If the mother doesn't work, it's a pretty clear analysis. I would put up with quite a bit of "cost" to get the "benefit" of an extra $1200. With working moms, it's a lot more complicated. But the article's analysis is flawed. She takes into consideration ALL the time that one would spend breastfeeding and compares that to the concept of breastfeeding being "free." As if if the woman were formula feeding she would spend NO time feeding her child. Of course a woman's time is not worth "nothing" but a mother doesn't get paid for feeding her child whether she breastfeeds or formula feeds. A better analysis would be to compare the EXTRA time (other than actual feeding) that it takes to breastfeed a child verses formula feeding. When you're not working outside the home, there is no extra cost but there is with formula. When you are working and breastfeeding you have to take into consideration the time you are pumping when you would be working and earning money instead (which depends on your salary too). And it's not just the pumping but the cleaning the pump and freezing the milk and getting bottles ready,etc. But with formula feeding you have to consider the time it takes to measure the formula, get the bottles ready, and shop for the formula, etc. I actually just ran the numbers and with my salary and my reduced hours for breastfeeding (I only work 7 hours a day so I can still be in the office from 9-5 and have time to pump while I'm there) it's actually costing me more money to breastfeed. But, that's because I made the choice to work less. I imagine that most working breastfeeding moms still work the same number of hours so the sacrifice is time with their families instead of actual dollars (or they are claiming work hours when they are really pumping). If money were really the issue for us, I would probably work more and still breastfeed to save the money. Nonetheless, after writing this it seems like the cost is not so much an issue for me than I thought. But it would still irk me to pay money for something I can produce myself. And if I wasn't working it would save a lot of money.

So I guess that after reading the article and doing my analysis I'm not going to be as quick to judge a mom who choses not to breastfeed. I will still love breastfeeding and will still encourage it as much as the analysis warrants, meaning as so far as it makes sense for a particular woman given the costs and benefits that pertain to her in the analysis above (which don't worry Mom, probably includes most of your WIC clients). Even though I want it to be the best for every women I realize it is not. And I realize that it's not the best for a larger number of women than I previously thought. QED :)