by hilzoy
Breastfeeding children has all sorts of advantages over bottle feeding. In particular, it’s healthier for the kids. New mothers have been told this over and over, in all sorts of ways. But despite this fact, rates of breastfeeding in this country are lower than in most other developed countries. The Department of Health and Human Services got worried about this, and decided to do something about it.
Now, one might think that before deciding what to do, it would be a good idea to figure out what, exactly, accounts for the low rates of breastfeeding. Is it, for instance, that women just don’t know about the benefits to their children? Not according to DHHS: “Research has shown that many women know that breastfeeding is the best nutrition for babies. This knowledge has not translated into changed behaviors, and breastfeeding rates have hit a plateau.”
Well, if women already know about the benefits of breastfeeding, but haven’t “translated” this knowledge into “changed behaviors”, one might wonder whether the problem lies elsewhere: with inadequate maternity leave, workplaces that are not set up to deal with nursing mothers, the hostility of strangers, and even the risk of arrest. I mean, it’s a thought. But not a thought DHHS seems to have had, since even though their very own web page tells us that women’s lack of knowledge is not the problem, they decided to go with yet another ad campaign. And not just any ad campaign, but a really idiotic one. Just look (pdf):
(This is supposed to show that breastfeeding reduces the risk of child obesity? Sheesh.)
h/t: Rebecca Kukla
Now I’m hungry. Is that wrong?
I don’t think the local laws and business policies against breast feeding cause lower rates of breast feeding, I think they’re symptomatic of overwhelming public attitude. And it’s one case where conservatives, with their puritanical opposition to boobs, and liberals, with their general aversion to family life and biological processes, can team up for the win. I doubt it is possible to overcome the general aversion to breastfeeding in public. Much more useful and healthy would be campaigns for breast pumping and feeding natural milk through bottles. Most people who breast feed do this anyway. And don’t call it ‘breast feeding’ because you’re not, and that causes problems. Call it ‘natural feeding’ or something.
You’re freakin’ kidding me.
God, they’re idiots. (And no, it has nothing to do with obesity. It has to do with the infantilism of people who can’t say “breastfeed” without working in some sort of titty joke – in this case visual. I never thought I’d see anyone who’d make Ashcroft’s mammaphobia look rational, but this qualifies.) I especially like their customized phone number: “Call 800-994-WOMAN for more bathroom-graffiti-level snickering about breasts, courtesy of your government”.
Good points on the impact of the anti-woman climate on women/infant health, too, but you didn’t really think the HHS was going to address that as a relevant issue under Bush, did you?
By strange coincidence, I happened upon the image above just after seeing this one, purportedly from a European McDonald’s ad.
At least it’t not taxpayer-funded.
Found at the great Beware of the Blog of the great radio station WFMU.
Not surprisingly… none of the reasons you mentioned for not breast feeding have anything to do with why my wife or the mothers I know chose not to breast feed.
It’s really quite difficult and painful the first couple of months…
sidereal
“and liberals, with their general aversion to family life and biological processes”
WTF?
“I doubt it is possible to overcome the general aversion to breastfeeding in public. Much more useful and healthy would be campaigns for breast pumping and feeding natural milk through bottles. Most people who breast feed do this anyway. And don’t call it ‘breast feeding’ because you’re not, and that causes problems. Call it ‘natural feeding’ or something.”
Jesus, sidereal, are you kidding me? One of the main benefits of breastfeeding is that you don’t have to sterilize bottles, tote around little coolers, etc. etc. The milk is always sterile, always at the right temperature, always ready in just the right amount. If you think I should be forced to pump and bottlefeed so that jerks won’t have their negative perceptions challenged then…um, I disagree with you very strongly indeed. I don’t share in the “general aversion” to breastfeeding; many other people I know don’t either. Our numbers could grow. Our society has undergone many radical changes in what is considered appropriate behavior; I fail to see why this small adjustment is or should be impossible.
What xanax said.
I, for one, quite enjoy most of the biological processes, with the exception of Death.
sidereal: I echo both xanax and Belle W.
smlook: I know people who have either not breast-fed or stopped for both sets of reasons: pain and the ones I mentioned. For what it’s worth, the DHHS site has a rather ambiguous attitude towards pain: on the Q and A page, there’s a question: “Does breastfeeding hurt?” The answer begins: “Breastfeeding does not hurt. There may be some tenderness at first, but it should gradually go away as the days go by…”, but then goes on to: “To minimize soreness…” So there is no pain, but here’s how to minimize it. Odd.
There is, actually, more that’s odd about this campaign. They decided that since women knew that breastfeeding had benefits over bottle feeding, but many still don’t do it, they would emphasize two things: first, the naturalness of it (so that women would feel confident etc.), and second, the harms/risks of not breastfeeding. (The risks of not breastfeeding being the same as the benefits of breastfeeding, only expressed differently.) As I see it, the naturalness theme might have been designed to make women feel that if they can’t do this easily, they must be real idiots. And while I have never done this myself, my friends and relations tell me that some babies and mothers just take to it right away, but others really don’t; so going on about how easy and natural it is does not strike me as a good move if in fact part of the problem is that for some women, it’s difficult and painful.
The part about how you’re exposing your baby to risks if you don’t breastfeed, likewise, makes sense if the problem is that women are not sufficiently concerned about their babies. But if it’s something else — either pain or e.g. the fact that a woman has to go back to working as a maid in a Holiday Inn after a couple of weeks, and can’t see how to breastfeed her baby on the job — then going on about how risky it is for her baby if it’s not breastfed both fails to address the real problem and adds an extra layer of guilt at a time that a lot of women find unfamiliar and difficult and confusing.
Thank you for those last paragraphs, Hilzoy. I was, I thought, a very mild advocate of breastfeeding when our son was first born, and my wife still hasn’t entirely forgiven me for imposing what she took as pressure to do something that really, really hurt for the five months that she tried to do it. I don’t think anyone should be hassled for breastfeeding in public, but some people are just WAY too militant about advocating breastfeeding, and that’s a problem too.
Oh no, the militant breast exposers. We must stop them. They are a scourge on our society. Lol.
“If you think I should be forced to pump and bottlefeed”
Yes, while strapped down. I shall laugh maniacally all the while.
I am 100% for breast feeding in public. I’m just not confident that any kind of education or public relations campaign will significantly change the social mores that make it difficult.
“sidereal: I echo both xanax and Belle W.”
It’s a hard thing to find statistics for. If you can work out a methodology, I’m confident I’d be vindicated. I don’t think there’s anything inherently family unfriendly about the principles of liberalism, but it’s present anyway. Possibly because liberalism currently overlaps heavily with urbanity and academia, both of which aren’t very amenable to families. As well as the enthusiasm towards womens’ rights which leads to overstepping and resenting women who choose not to have a career in order to raise a family. This is one we deal with semi-regularly.
It’s a hard thing to find statistics for. If you can work out a methodology, I’m confident I’d be vindicated.
ah, the Jonah Goldberg variation of research: i’m right so the data must agree with me.
because liberalism currently overlaps heavily with urbanity and academia, both of which aren’t very amenable to families.
i guess that explains why there are so few people in urban environments.
Revolting, immature ad.
Breastfeeding is a skill. It requires knowledge of the proper technique to do it without soreness. Part of the problem women are so ignorant about it is that most of have grown up never being exposed to the sight of women breastfeeding.
Teats are for suckling on.
Stupid patriarchy.
[/rant]
ObDisclosure: Extended breastfeeding has been one of the most demanding and exhausting as well as one of the most rewarding experiences of my life. And way up there on the scale of self-esteem enhancing activities. Plus I think the kids liked it.
speaking of tax dollars, any of you lawyer types care to comment on this (14th amendment, section 4):
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
vs Bush’s “the IOUs are meaningless” , “there is no Trust Fund” ?
Yeah, while I can’t speak from personal experience to painful breastfeeding (never hurt significantly in the year I breastfed each of my kids), basic evolutionary reasoning suggests that when done properly it shouldn’t be painful — otherwise you’d end up with a lot of dead infants in the days before there were acceptable formulas, because the mothers would have a huge incentive to wean too early.
I would expect that more money for lactation consultants (to replace the community of experienced breastfeeders that women have historically had and now lack) would be much more useful than the idiotic ad campaign featured.
I lived in Manhattan when three of my four daughters were babies, and I nursed them in public everywhere, in parks, ferries, museums, restaurants, zoos, playgrounds, trains, even in the subway. The first time I took my first born for a walk, I nursed her in Central Park. I realized my freedom and mobility depended on my willingness to overcome my inhibitions about public breastfeeding. No one ever hassled me; occasionally someone stopped to admire the baby, not realizing she was eating. Sometimes women and men would give me a warm knowing smile. That was 20-30 years ago. Certainly I would have protested if anyone had complained or banished me to a bathroom.
I was discreet; wearing the right clothes helps. The trick is to start nursing the baby before she starts screaming in hunger. Most of the time no one realized what I was doing.
I was a breastfeeding counselor for 13 years. Nursing is learned behavior. New mothers need help and support, particularly if their moms, aunts, sisters, friends haven’t breastfed. I recall my mom’s telling me 45 years ago that “doctors know nothing about breastfeeding and give useless advice. ” New mothers leave the hospital very quickly; if they don’t have help at home, breastfeeding might seem difficult, painful, impossible. Volunteer breastfeeding counselors and lactation consultants can make the difference. I found nursing fun, enjoyable, and easy. In so many ways it simplified caring for the baby.
I lived in Manhattan when three of my four daughters were babies, and I nursed them in public everywhere, in parks, ferries, museums, restaurants, zoos, playgrounds, trains, even in the subway. The first time I took my first born for a walk, I nursed her in Central Park. I realized my freedom and mobility depended on my willingness to overcome my inhibitions about public breastfeeding. No one ever hassled me; occasionally someone stopped to admire the baby, not realizing she was eating. Sometimes women and men would give me a warm knowing smile. That was 20-30 years ago. Certainly I would have protested if anyone had complained or banished me to a bathroom.
I was discreet; wearing the right clothes helps. The trick is to start nursing the baby before she starts screaming in hunger. Most of the time no one realized what I was doing.
I was a breastfeeding counselor for 13 years. Nursing is learned behavior. New mothers need help and support, particularly if their moms, aunts, sisters, friends haven’t breastfed. I recall my mom’s telling me 45 years ago that “doctors know nothing about breastfeeding and give useless advice. ” New mothers leave the hospital very quickly; if they don’t have help at home, breastfeeding might seem difficult, painful, impossible. Volunteer breastfeeding counselors and lactation consultants can make the difference. I found nursing fun, enjoyable, and easy. In so many ways it simplified caring for the baby.
“ah, the Jonah Goldberg variation of research: i’m right so the data must agree with me.”
ah, snark. Your aspiration to only holding opinions that are well sourced with statistics is admirable. It must make it difficult to navigate your house. Would you like me to comment every time you stray? I fear it would get tedious quickly.
“i guess that explains why there are so few people in urban environments.”
I’m sure it will shock you to learn that rural fertility rates remain much higher than urban fertility rates in the US. Furthermore, ‘urban’ fertility rates are concentrated in suburban regions, and at least around here they tend to vote Republican, so it doesn’t exactly damage my thesis. There are statistics prevalent for these, but I’m eating breakfast. “Differences in Fertility Patterns Between Urban and Rural Women in Washington State, 1983-1984 to 1993-1994” in Women & Health would probably be a good place to start.
Your aspiration to only holding opinions that are well sourced with statistics is admirable.
thanks. i like to think it keeps me from making too many baseless accusations and insults. i prefer that my insults and accusations are reality-based.
I’m sure it will shock you to learn that rural fertility rates remain much higher than urban fertility rates in the US.
actually, it doesn’t. but, that fact doesn’t mean “liberals” are averse to raising families.
It’s a hard thing to find statistics for. If you can work out a methodology, I’m confident I’d be vindicated.
Gee, I’m equally confident that you are just spouting tripe. As arguments go, yours is about as valid as just saying “is too” as loud as possible in the schoolyard.
I don’t think there’s anything inherently family unfriendly about the principles of liberalism, but it’s present anyway. Possibly because liberalism currently overlaps heavily with urbanity and academia, both of which aren’t very amenable to families.
Before I join in the snarkery, could you explain what those two sentences actually mean?
“I’m equally confident that you are just spouting tripe”
Have any evidence?
Look, I have a belief, grown from years of personal experience. I have attempted to provide some reasoning and analysis for it, as best I could in the absence of any objective study, which I doubt exists. If your goal is to disabuse me of the belief, your best bet is to provide some competing evidence or reasoning. If your goal is to gird up in self-righteousness and lob facile insults, pray continue.
I offer you the same challenge that cleek dutifully ignored. If every opinion I have that is not supported by a well documented study is tripe, then the same standard applies to you. And I’m sure with a little reflection you’ll find it’s an unworkable standard.
Maybe we should just agree that (a) it is unlikely that there’s any good statistical evidence about whether liberals or conservatives are more comfortable with families, biological processes; (b) in all likelihood, some liberals (and some conservatives) meet sidereal’s characterization; (c) in all likelihood, many do not; and (d) since there is, as sidereal says, nothing in the principles of liberalism that requires this, to the (unknown) extent that there are such people, they do not reflect on liberalism as a political view.
Just a thought.
If every opinion I have that is not supported by a well documented study is tripe, then the same standard applies to you.
this “every opinion” thing is a strawman – nobody said all of your opinions needed to be backed up with “studies”. nobody would challenge your opinion on Beatles v Stones because it wasn’t based on a study.
but you made a couple of pretty specific and nearly-sociological-sounding claims about fairly specific groups of people. those normally require at least some kind of basis in fact.
“Before I join in the snarkery, could you explain what those two sentences actually mean?”
Sorry, Anarch. Missed your question amid the inferno.
The first sentence means that I believe in a correlation, not causation. I forget the statistical term. Hidden factor? The second sentence (and the third) is a stab at the hidden factors. To be specific, as I realize my original comment could be construed as ‘liberals hate babies!’, I experience a discomfort with child-rearing and what it entails (breastfeeding, diaper changing, moving around with strollers) in cosmopolitan settings, in academic settings, and among the young, all of which demographics obviously overlap with liberal politics.
Incidentally and randomly, Atrios had a related post recently.
Sorry, hilzoy! I didn’t meant to derail from the topic of breast-feeding, which is obviously a significant issue and probably more deserving of conversation than this one.
A rare moment of resounding agreement, here.
but you made a couple of pretty specific and nearly-sociological-sounding claims about fairly specific groups of people. those normally require at least some kind of basis in fact.
Geez, I read that as many liberals tend to live in urban areas (where housing is generally pretty expensive) and/or are part of academia (where salaries lag behind the private sector and many of which are located in urban areas). Expensive housing and lower pay = less willingness to raise a family. I don’t have any studies on that, just personal knowledge of many instances where it’s true; for conservatives and liberals.
Perhaps if the initial question (echoed by many) to sidereal had been asked in a way that didn’t violate the posting rules* the discussion could have gone more amiably?
*I mean, I assume that if the posting rules forbid profane terms such as F**K, then an abbreviation would also be disallowed; correct?
I’d think so, too, but I’m inclined to err on the side of leniency. Plus, I’m lazy.
Let us review the original statement:
“liberals, with their general aversion to family life and biological processes”
I think “WTF?” is about the most concise and diplomatic thing that should be said to a generalization like that.
Catsy: I think “WTF?” is about the most concise and diplomatic thing that should be said to a generalization like that.
Seconded.
votermom: Teats are for suckling on.
Thirded.
Also: I doubt it is possible to overcome the general aversion to breastfeeding in public
Huh? Of course it is.
nobody would challenge your opinion on Beatles v Stones because it wasn’t based on a study.
I would, if you picked Stones, because it’s objectively untrue. I can prove it!
This might seem tangential. Older buildings tend to have a little lounge attached to women’s restrooms. This trend in architecture hasn’t entirely disappeared–some newer building have “changing rooms” or a comfortable chair or two–but every time I enter an older department store building, I’m always struck by the room that’s given to simply hanging out comfortably.
My exposure to breast feeding, when young, occured overwhelmingly in the lounge-area of the women’s restroom of my church, which was built in the 1920s.
I raise this point not because women should feel uncomfortable breast-feeding where they need to but because they deserve to be able to retreat to a semi-private space to take off their tops. As hilzoy’s post points out, women would like to be able to breast-feed, in general, but there are a number of reasons that it’s difficult to do so. The economy-version washroom might be one of them.
Ah, America! Where if you don’t breastfeed, you’re putting your child at risk, and if you do breastfeed you stand the risk of harassment and criminal charges.
Heads I win, tails you lose. And they claim there isn’t a patriarchal system here.
Jackmormon‘s point is quite interesting to me. I seem to recall an article (before the internet, perhaps in the Atlantic) that argued that while in America, ‘equality feminism’ has been pursued, while in Europe (esp. Scandanavian countries), ‘difference feminism’ has beeen (I’m not sure if these were the names) What that means is that in the US, the primary pursuit has been to move to gender blind rules, such that maternity leave is conflated with paternity leave, while in Europe, the emphasis has been on guaranteeing a special set of rights for mothers. I wonder if the building design that Jackmormon sees is another example of this mindset, (just ask a women about using the restroom at a public event)
Lest one think that cultural views like this can’t really have an impact on architecture, if you visit public buildings in the South from the segregation era, you can note the philosophy of separate but equal expressed in actual design, so that all building are symmetrical, with restrooms and water fountains on separate wings.
It’s also interesting that there seems to be no consensus on the percentage of mothers who breastfeed by country. For example, in one of the links, it has that in the US, 70%+ started breastfeeding, but that drops to 32% after 6 months. One the other hand, the Global Data bank on Breastfeeding discusses the ‘everfed’ rate at 4 months (nothing other than breastmilk), which is an astonishing 98% in Sweden. The ‘everfed’ percentage in the US may even be lower than 32% if mothers are also feeding their children formula.
I think “WTF?” is about the most concise and diplomatic thing that should be said to a generalization like that.
Really? So, “Gee sidereal, that’s one heck of a generalization, what makes you think that?” wouldn’t have been a more diplomatic way to question a well-known and respected OW commenter? Perhaps it’s not as concise, but I think sidereal’s earned a few keystokes.
Sorry, to get OT like that. On Topic: the DHHS says that “many” women understand the benefits of breast-feeding, so I’d say that there was still work to do informationally, not all women understand the nutritional benefits of breast-feeding. Clearly though, Hilzoy’s additional aspects are well identified, but how many of them can be affected by free advertising? Maybe hostility of strangers could be, but the rest, short of supporting pending legislation that does not (I assume) exist? I don’t think so.
So, IMHO it’s best to keep trying to impress on why breast-feeding is good, i.e. identify the results of better nutrition so that those who understand that breast-feeding offers better nutrition also are taught the benefits of that nutrition to lower the risk of ear infection or obesity. This campaign does that; sophmorically to be sure (probably a younger creative team on this pro-bono job) and poorly, the copy is much too small and badly placed, but it at least tries to tie tangible benefits to better nutrition.
Ah, America! Where if you don’t breastfeed, you’re putting your child at risk, and if you do breastfeed you stand the risk of harassment and criminal charges.
Even worse: it seems to be the case that if you breastfeed in public you’re a whore and if you bottle feed in public you’re a bad mother. Clearly, all mothering must be done in a dark, lonely room to escape censure.
… I mean, not only do you potentially feel like a bad mother because of your own knowledge of pro-breastfeeding data, but you also get told (by complete strangers) that you’re a bad mother.
Weirdly enough the Netherlands is one of the European countries with lowest breastfeeding percentages (80 percent start breastfeeding but after two months less than 40 percent is still at it). Public breastfeeding is slightly looked upon, which is strange since bare breasts are quite common (ad’s, billboards, commercials, beaches). Giving birth is viewed as a natural process, most births are at home with a midwife, every new mother gets a week of help at home with the new baby, employers have to provide time and resources for breastfeeding till the baby is 9 months. And still we have a very low percentage.
I tried with all three kids, assisted by lactation nurses, but for some women it just is not easy I guess. And with heavy kids (all were above 10 lbs) it is very important for the brain that their bloodsugar level is maintained, so they really need regular feeding. With the first I stopped after 6 weeks of trying because I got really allergic to the antibiotics given against breastinfections I suffered from (and pumping makes you more likely to catch that). I was all swollen up and couldn’t care for the baby at all for over a week. With the next two I tried for two weeks, but it never worked.
Hi…i just wanna say about this whole iss is that i happen to be 100% against breastfeeding in public, i find this dirty behaviour to be revolting and sexually obscene. Public breastfeeding is a primative behaviour which shows that we are not much different than Animals, we as a society needs to stop abandoning common sense that public breastfeeding is indecent behaviour and quit looking at this whole issue as womens rights political correctness Bull****. The trouble with our society is that its too liberal, we live in a liberal free society that teaches us as a new generation to be rude and impolite and to make it ok to be rude and impolite which is what public breastfeeding is. A liberal society is miseducating a new generation to socially accept this indecent, lowclass, primative behaviour to where we are becoming more like ignorant savages and plus lose a civilized society with no moral values. These liberal womens rights lactivist are doing everything they can to indoctrinate a new generation in the 21th century of the bad ways which we should look at as social mores. Lactivist are a poison to this country and they set a bad example for all breastfeeding stay-at-home-moms, the ideal traditional conservative breastfeeding mother, usually stays at home with her children to breastfeed, or to show some class by breastfeeding her baby in a restaurant bathroom to show some honor and respect for all restaurant customers. Any women who has class would do that, public breastfeeding needs to be banned in all 50 states to make America a decent more civilized country with good moral values since the pilgrims came out here. Public indecent exposure such as breastfeeding in public is eroding our society, which is contributing this moral breakdown in our society. A society who believes in manners and decency would and can make a difference by signing petitions to have laws passed to make public indecent exposure illegal such as public breastfeeding by getting involved in the Republican convention. Public breastfeeding is a ugly, shameful, dirty, sexually explicit act that makes all women look bad and makes the ideal traditional conservative breastfeeding mother look bad. Public indecent exposure is whats hurting the moral fabrics of America’s values , because it used to be at one time or a nother that breastfeeding was done behind closed doors and remained a mystery. People knew about breastfeeding back in the 1920’s, 1930’s, 1940’s, 1950’s and 1960’s era, it just wasnt veiwed out in public to push it in our face sort of thing which gave women a sense of dignity, decency and class. I dont have a problem at all with breastfeeding or nursing in public, i only support nursing in public, but only with the acception of a babybottle, just not THERE KIND of nursing in public of how Lactivist want it to be as an arrogant push-it-in-your-face-boobs sort of attitude. Like i already said before, lactivist dont set good examples for every breastfeeding women out there, they are bad role models for every idealistic conservative, traditional stay-at-home breastfeeding mother out there. Lactivist are hateful (make-trouble-for-you-people) bunch of scumbag militant groups that have really made a big embarrasment for all decent breastfeeding mothers out there and made a big embarrasment for themselves. These nurse-in-mother lactivist need to be repelled from our society and deserve a shot of pepper spray in there eyes for making business hard for Delta company when they sit around with no life to hold up signs for a big demonstration all because some lowclass trash like Emily Gillette couldnt take responsibilitys for her actions to use discretion or to take it to a bathroom. Public breastfeeding does tend to creepout restaurant-store customers and also makes business look bad, it gives a restaurant-store establishment a bad image. Women should feel a sense of shame, embarrasment, awkwardness and feeling out of place before doing something discraceful like that. If our screwy liberal government and senators are having legislation passed to have public indecent exposure such as public breastfeed legal just about anywhere including the workforce, how long will it be till laws are being passed to urinate-defacate in public. In france its perfectly legal to urinate in public and could very well be like that in America with the rate of socially accepting public breastfeeding to be a social norm
Happy new year, Sean.
See Livejournal’s attack on women and mothers for a more recent discussion of breastfeeding, courtesy SixApart.
Thanks for that erudite and eloquent look at the topic, sean. Just one question: When you take your children — which, given your lengthy dissertation above, you certainly have children — when you take them out to eat, do you make them take their meal in the same room that people urinate and defecate in?
As always, it’s hard to be sure nowadays, when some on the right (and even on the left) have gone beyond parody, but my bet is that’s a fake one.