I should be happy that the New York Times is highlighting the importance of breastfeeding. But this article on the difficulties faced by nursing mothers in lower-income jobs is disturbing in ways the author did not intend.
Poor women, and their children, suffer because their employers are not as sympathetic to their need to pump milk for their babies as are the employers of professional women. Thus they are less likely to breastfeed their children, and when they do it is not for as long a time, in yet another case of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.All too true. But the idealized portrait of the corporate "lactation room" supplied with pumps, telephones, Internet connections, CD players and reading material neglects a major component of the advantages of breastfeeding. Yes, the milk itself is perfectly designed for human beings and superior in countless ways to the best possible artificial formula. However, just as the formula-makers try to isolate and imitate what they consider to be the important components of human milk, the proponents of workplace lactation are focusing nearsightedly on one part of the breastfeeding relationship—the milk—and ignoring or minimizing the human factors. Nursing is a relationship, a two-person job, an intimate interaction between mother and child. Milk that is mechanically pumped, far away from the sight, sound, smell, and touch of the baby; refrigerated, stored, and dispensed in plastic bottles by someone who is not the baby's mother—this cannot come close to providing the benefits of an on-demand, skin-to-skin, eye-to-eye mother/child connection.
It may be the best that can be done in difficult circumstances, and it's certainly better than the same non-interaction using commercial formula. But it's time to stop pretending such substitutes are anything more than second best. One mother is quoted in the article as saying, of pumping milk for her son, "There is a lot of satisfaction in knowing I am doing right by him." She's doing better than she could be, and perhaps the best she can—that's not for me to judge. But she's not doing what's best for her son, and she shouldn't be beguiled into thinking she is.
Inexpensive prints of famous art works are a boon and a blessing, opening a world of beauty to many who could never see, let alone own, the originals. But no one pretends that a photo of the Mona Lisa is da Vinci's masterpiece, and someone who attempts to pass an imitation off as the real thing is normally considered a criminal.We're quite happy with the way our children turned out, but there are plenty of things we wish would could have done differently. My siblings and I not only survived formula feeding (if you can call evaporated milk and corn syrup "formula"), but rigid feeding schedules, solid food introduced at one month, cigarette smoke everywhere, and a host of other things that would horrify parents today.
My point is not to criticize someone else's decisions, even if they were by choice and not necessity. The criminals, as far as I'm concerned, are those in the baby formula industry, and the medical profession, who promote the idea that an artificial substitute is just as good as the real thing, or at least close enough that there's no point in trying very hard to provide the original. Doctors are quick to discourage mothers who have minor breastfeeding struggles -- hence the recent rise in the lactation consultant business. When our children were babies, there was no admission from the medical authorities that there was anything better in breast milk than in formula -- and I'm sure the same was true of the cow's milk/corn syrup concoction the doctors were promoting to our parents.
Perhaps I'm a bit touchy here because I've seen too many instances of "this isn't ideal but it's what we have to do, and we can make up for it in other ways" turned into "it really doesn't matter what we do; one choice is as good as another," or even, "the thing we used to consider a substitute is really better than the original." Caesarean sections are commonly being chosen, not for medical reasons, but for convenience. Day care is considered not just a necessity for some families, but a childrearing choice just as good as -- or maybe better than -- sacrificing so that children can be home with their mothers (and/or fathers). It's not that I don't commend those companies that make it easier for mothers to pump milk for their babies. But I wish the article had pointed out that supplying milk is only one part of feeding a baby. Even though those babies are getting the benefits of their mother's milk, they are still being fed by strangers much of the time. You are Alex's mom, and there is no substitute that is "just as good"!
Thanks for writing! I always worry that someone will be offended by something I write and not give me a chance to explain and/or apologize.
