Too-good-to-get-lost-in-comments Tuesday

****

Forgive me, this is going to be long. 

I’m a lurker who has never commented before for multiple reasons, first and foremost being that I’m currently 9 months pregnant with my first, so I don’t have the experience to contribute, and I plan on breastfeeding exclusively, so my perspective is different than many of the others.  I read this blog, however, because I find it to truly be one of the least biased and non-judgmental sources of true information – I can link to the original studies to see what’s going on, read the lactivists’ overblown comments, and then get the other perspective here in an educated and civil fashion.

Despite wanting to breastfeed, my biggest issue here is that breastfeeding really probably shouldn’t even BE a matter of public policy.  Some on here, maybe even FFF herself, may disagree with me on that, and I’m sure lactivists are going to be appalled at that opinion, but really…  The WHO recommends 2 years of breastfeeding because the infants in third world countries are starving to death or being given formula mixed with polluted water.  That’s such an entirely different set of circumstances that it’s irresponsible and frankly insulting to those parents to even lump them in the same conversation as Americans.  So keeping with the American focus (sorry, international readers): why does it matter?  If you want to focus your zealotry on the health and well-being of Americans, why not focus on reducing fast food consumption?  Why not focus on improved schools in poorer areas?  Why not focus on hundreds of other topics that actually have proven studies and proven effects (more on that below) to better the health of children or the planet or reduce cost to taxpayers or save lives?  I would maintain (purely through my own opinion) that the absolute last parenting choice that should be questioned, berated, or standardized should be breast milk vs. formula.  Sure, make sure it’s proper formula and not coconut water mixed with whiskey, but otherwise…I think all new parents are simply trying to survive, trying to feed their child in the manner that works best for them.  When children get older and parents get “lazier,” maybe then we should step in, but an infant doesn’t leave much margin for error.  If they’re not thriving, CPS is called.  If they are thriving, if they’re loved, if they’re cared for, why is it anyone else’s business?  What if formula even is easier?  Disposable diapers are certainly easier than cloth, but despite overwhelming evidence of disposables being harmful to the environment, no one is suggesting cloth diapering be mandated by the government.  There’d be riots.  Why does someone have to have ‘good’ reasons for not breastfeeding?  Who gets to judge what those reasons are? 

As many of the FFF Friday posts have shown, the reasons for not breastfeeding are vast and personal, physical, psychological, emotional…why should anyone be allowed to judge whether those reasons are valid?  I plan to breastfeed for 3 main reasons: 1) it’s free 2) it burns an extra 300 calories a day and 3) because I’m healthy as a horse and my husband has bad allergies, so I hope to transfer some of my strong immunity to our son.  That’s it.  The first 2 reasons are entirely selfish, but when I tell anyone in the medical or lactivist community, I’m greeted with a knowing smirk and a “at least you’ll be breastfeeding!”  If my vanity is a good enough reason to breastfeed, why should someone else’s vanity be a shameful reason to formula-feed?  (Not that the majority of those here formula feed for vain reasons – I use that example because that’s often the stereotype given to formula feeding mothers.)  If I were the one with the allergies in my family, I probably would choose formula.  I am self-employed, routinely work 16-hour days without even a lunch break, and make 3 times what my husband makes.  I’ll get 2 to 3 weeks of unpaid maternity leave at home tops before I have to either return to work or stop paying rent.  I’m planning to buy an expensive pump with a car charger and pump while stuck in traffic – and that’s not a joke.  But if I have issues with supply?  If my son won’t take a bottle?  If I’m frankly just too damn tired?  We’re going to switch to formula.  And I’m lucky – I have insurance that will help pay for the pump and clients that will be sympathetic to my leaking in the middle of a meeting.  Many, many people do not have these luxuries.  How is the McDonald’s cashier supposed to pump on her OSHA-mandated 10-minute break every 5 hours?  How about the factory worker in a male-dominated field who is embarrassed by her body expressing liquid at the drop of a hat?  Hell, even the much-maligned model or actress who doesn’t want to screw up her boobs.  Why does her career, her well-being get short shrift?  There’s a fascination in this country with parenting being the ultimate martyrdom.  If you choose to make choices that maintain a balance between career and family, or a balance between your own sense of self and your child, you’re somehow lesser.

And that’s my issue as perfectly exemplified in the comments in the last 2 posts (3 if we include this one): lactivism is no longer a science in this country; it’s a religion.  True science weighs the facts, presents them, and theorizes based on those facts.  If the facts are overwhelmingly in favor of one particular side, public policy often follows.  True science doesn’t use, or need to use, guilt and fear-mongering because true science doesn’t need them.  The facts speak for themselves.

But in the case of breastfeeding vs. FFing, the facts don’t speak to anything but some interesting anecdotes.  They really don’t.  It’s impossible, as we all know, to do a randomized controlled trial of BF vs. FF, and barring that, what you’ve got is a lot of self-reported incidents from select demographics.  Read the other posts on this blog for the breakdowns, or hell, pick up some statistics and abstracts from studies.  The people that have the time, money, and ability to BF in this country already tend to come from higher-educated, wealthier, upper middle-class backgrounds, so the fact that they produce mildly smarter kids that get sick less often stands to reason, no matter what they choose to feed their infants.  (And as long as we’re flopping out our SAT dicks, here’s one to puzzle over: I’m one of five kids.  Two adopted, both black, 3 biological, all white.  The 2 adopted and one preemie-born bio brother were formula-fed; the other 2 were breastfed.  All 5 of us scored in the 14- and 1500s on our SATs and none of us ever had anything more serious than a common cold.  Perhaps our IQs, immune system, and lack of obesity all around have more to do with how our parents raised us than what we were fed in the first year of life…just another nature vs. nurture anecdote for people to mull over.)  It’s an inherently flawed reporting system. 

But the lactivists jump on these small differences and inflate them into being the end all and be all – much like religious zealots.  You’re taking faulty, coincidental facts on faith.  And that’s fine.  You’re allowed to.  But that’s religion, not science.  Creationists can quote the flaws in the fossil record and cite the problems with carbon dating to prove their point, too, and you know why?  Because they’re coming at it from a religious perspective, the bias that “I am right and if you disagree you clearly haven’t had it explained well enough yet or know all the facts, so here, let me berate you with the ones I’ve chosen.”  I speak from experience.  My mother is a born-again fundamentalist.  And there’s nothing that irritates religious extremists more than an agnostic weighing the evidence – which is all that’s going on here.  FFF isn’t even atheistic about breastfeeding, as has been stated many times; she’s all for it if it works for you.  But that’s not good enough for a zealot.  A zealot wants to save your soul.

Look, I actually agree with Alan that if you BF for a year and then feed your kid McDonald’s for the rest of his life that you’ve done no real good.  Do I believe breastfeeding is, on a bell curve, better for infants?  I do.  It’s the condescension of the lactivists that I have a problem with, not their point.  I plan to breastfeed.  I plan to cloth diaper.  Hell, I’m planning a home birth – and you know what else has skewed and vilified statistics?  Home birth.  Because the only home births a midwife will attend are those to healthy, low-risk mothers.  So the statistics for home birth look incredible – lower maternal deaths, lower infant deaths, higher quality of experience.  But I (and ACOG and all the people against it) know that hospitals have to accept everyone, so their stats get skewed by high-risk patients.  That’s okay.  That’s why I would never vilify someone for choosing a hospital birth – because there are no real, valid, double-blind statistics on it.  We have to go with what we know, weigh the risks, and make our choices.  Just like with breastfeeding.  Just like with school.  Just like the myriad other choices we’ll have to make and continue to make as parents.  I could cite statistics on the effects of divorce on children here that are more clear-cut than those on breastfeeding, but I won’t because it’s a choice that sometimes needs to be made for the good of the parents and therefore the family.  I’m sure Alan would agree…?