When I was leaving for work this morning, and while eyeballing all her "outside toys" in the garage, my daughter said, "Being outside is my favorite thing!" Then she said, "But my favorite, favorite, favorite thing is when you are home."
Oh, baby girl, how do I manage to elude the gravitational pull of my love for you long enough to go to work?
"Just like it's risky to smoke during pregnancy, it's risky not to breast-feed after," said Suzanne Haynes, senior scientific adviser to the Office on Women's Health in the Department of Health and Human Services. "The whole notion of talking about risk is new in this field, but it's the only field of public health, except perhaps physical activity, where there is never talk about the risk." A two-year national breast-feeding awareness campaign that culminated this spring ran television announcements showing a pregnant woman clutching her belly as she was thrown off a mechanical bull during ladies' night at a bar — and compared the behavior to failing to breast-feed. "You wouldn't take risks before your baby's born," the advertisement says. "Why start after?" Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, has proposed requiring warning labels, on cans of infant formula and in advertisements, similar to the those on cigarettes. They would say that the Department of Health and Human services has determined that "breast-feeding is the ideal method of feeding and nurturing infants" or that "breast milk is more beneficial to infants than infant formula." Child-rearing experts have long pointed to the benefits of breast-feeding. But critics say the new campaign has taken things too far and will make mothers who cannot breast-feed, or choose not to, feel guilty and inadequate. "I desperately wanted to breast-feed," said Karen Petrone, an associate professor of history at University of Kentucky in Lexington. When her two babies failed to gain weight and her pediatrician insisted that she supplement her breast milk with formula, Ms. Petrone said, "I felt so guilty." "I thought I was doing something wrong," she added. "Nobody ever told me that some women just can't produce enough milk." Moreover, urging women to breast-feed exclusively is a tall order in a country where more than 60 percent of mothers of very young children work, federal law requires large companies to provide only 12 weeks' unpaid maternity leave and lactation leave is unheard of. Only a third of large companies provide a private, secure area where women can express breast milk during the workday, and only 7 percent offer on-site or near-site child care, according to a 2005 national study of employers by the nonprofit Families and Work Institute." [NY Times]
This article really ticks me off. Believe me, as someone who gave birth within the past few years, pregnant women are sufficiently educated about breastfeeding. Society, especially male politicians who have never been pregnant, seems to feel that it can keep asking more and more of mothers without any additional support. Many employers only allow six weeks for maternity leave and sometimes eight if you had a c-section. Yes, women can take additional unpaid time thanks to the Family and Medical Leave Act, but some families can't afford to or are worried about repercussions at work if they do so. Choosing to breastfeed and then having to go back to work means hooking yourself up to a milking machine multiple times a day. Believe me, using a machine to milk your breasts is no one's idea of a good time. Even if the breastfeeding time at home was special and really healthful for the baby, what if your job or employer didn't provide the time or the private facilities to pump? Are you going to pump standing at the counter in the bathroom? Sitting in your car in a public parking lot?
Three people I know chose to breastfeed their children. All of them had some difficulties with it and that was while being able to remain at home. One person had a lactation specialist come to her home to help her with both children. One person wasn't able to continue producing enough milk past three months with a second child. One person's child was so thin and sickly in the first few months of its life we were afraid the child wouldn't survive.
My bottlefed two year old has never had an ear infection. She had diarrhea one afternoon. She has never thrown up. She's incredibly bright and strong and healthy and happy. None of the children in my family in my generation were breastfed and we've all gone on to be intelligent, extremely well-educated, healthy adults.
I'm not saying don't do research and don't make the information available. You chose to breastfeed your child? Great. But that doesn't give you the right to make that decision for anyone else. It doesn't give you the right to equate feeding perfectly healthful formula with taking a risk with a child's health such as smoking while pregnant.
". . .it is very clear to me that the reason women think they have to "choose" between work and family is because (1) men don't; (2) employers expect employees to have no other major committments in their lives; (3) we've developed a nice healthy backlash culture against educated white women in which we now allow them the right to work, but hold them to ridiculous parenting standards that were heretofore unknown. . .[W]omen who stay home with kids are taking an enormous financial risk. . . Staying home means you earn less social security; it means you have no income of "your own"; it means that god forbid you end up divorced, or your husband drops dead, or even once your kids grow up and you're ready to move back into the work force, you. are. [screwed]. It means you likely have little or no retirement income--even though you are probably going to live longer than your husband. It means you have no "work history," no wage history, no "marketable skills." Now, this is [bull], of course, and there's good work out there (including Crittenden's own book If You've Raised Kids, You Can Manage Anything) pointing out that running a home does indeed involve marketable skills, but basically, yes, you are going to have to overcome that issue in the minds of future employers, and you are going to be way, way behind on the life wages scale. Which means, again, less social security, less money to retire on. . . . I do wish that, as a culture, we could look beyond easy simple arguments like "choice" and talk about what the consequences and effects of different "choices" are." [from: BPh.D.; changes in brackets are mine to make the language at least PG if not G-rated.]
I will just say that my Mom stayed home with me and my siblings and it was wonderful for us to have her there. We're all grown up and on our own now. Mom is facing a return to the working world in order to beef up her own Social Security earnings. So, this is a real issue.
