To Breast Feed, or Not to Breast Feed?

Jill Lepore’s article “Baby Food” from the January 19, 2009 edition of The New Yorker slowly builds an argument after pages of relating the history of breast-feeding, breast pumps, and commercialized baby food. The acceptability of breast-feeding in public is charted through the historical evolution of breast pump machines and what benefits they offer; even before the technology of the breast pump, the question of who should breast-feed (in regards to white women versus black nannies), and whether women who were “so refined, so civilized, so delicate…[should] suckle like a barnyard animal” were discussed by doctors, philosophers, and legislators (Lepore). Ultimately, Lepore argues that promoting breast-feeding by promoting pumping negates the “social and emotional benefits” that come from a mother holding her child to breast-feed when a baby is fed its mother’s pumped, frozen breast milk—“something you plug into a wall socket is a far cry from a whisper and a kiss.” Lepore asserts that non-bathroom lactation rooms in workplaces seemingly meant to support/promote breast-feeding are a “paltry substitute for maternity leave” and “feel cold-blooded;” she emphasizes that although pumps can be convenient, they should not replace the closeness of mother and child during breast-feeding, if mothers choose to breast-feed at all.

            Meanwhile, Amy Bentley charts the evolution of commercialized solid baby food that she claims largely “displaced” breast-feeding. In Bentley’s article “Feeding Baby, Teaching Mother: Gerber and the Evolution of Infant Food and Feeding Practices in the United States,” she examines the feeding of babies in pre-industrial America when feeding fruits and vegetables was thought to “contribute little in the way of nourishment helpful to infants” and that a diet of milk only up until around twelve months of age was sufficient (66). In the early Industrial era, canned goods were not readily trusted and were too expensive for most; although doctors and pediatricians “still considered breast-feeding best” during this time, they did advocate artificial formulas and supplements like cereals resulting in more and more women relying on the authority of science and medicine rather than their own parenting abilities (67). Eventually with the discovery of vitamins, feeding babies fruits and vegetables caught on and expanded, but the process of straining fruits and vegetables was difficult and time consuming. So this is where Gerber baby foods come in—“Conditions were such that commercially canned baby food provided mass quantities of pre-prepared strained fruits and vegetables to a public primed to accept them” (74). A major selling point to mothers of Gerber canned baby food was the “products’ ability to impart to women freedom and mobility, a notably modern concept” (78-9); that notion combined with the convenience and time-saving ability of canned baby foods made commercialized baby food more attractive than breast-feeding, thus its “displacement.”

            And here I express my comments and problems with these arguments. First of all, I agree with Lepore that pumping breast milk should not replace the connection that is fostered between mother and child during breast-feeding, but I do not think that the pump makes mutually exclusive “the mother, or her milk, [matter] more to the baby,” as she states. I think pumping is extremely convenient for a woman who want to feed her baby natural breast milk instead of formulas or supplements but might be caught in a situation where it is not the best time to be unbuttoning her blouse and throwing a towel over her baby’s head—such as eating at a restaurant or riding on the subway (the acceptability of public breast-feeding is another matter). Also, Kate Harding criticizes in her response article “Throwing the baby out with the breast pump” one of Lepore’s statements that I also find problematic: “When did ‘women’s rights’ turn into ‘the right to work’?” Screeching halt, please. Seriously? Women’s rights have everything to do with the right to work—it’s a BIG part of the whole equality argument, and the argument that women are innately nurturing providers where men are not. Harding sums it up nicely: “implying that the hard-won right to work outside the home ought to be regarded as a comparatively trivial concern [to mother-child bonding and the need for longer maternity leaves]…is throwing the baby out with the leftover expressed milk.” All of this can be done simultaneously—working outside the home, mother-child bonding, AND pumping when it is needed—these are not mutually exclusive options. Technically, these should not be either/or options anyway, although society makes that difficult sometimes. Contradictive to her own underlying argument, Lepore asserts that the social and emotional benefits that come from breast-feeding can be given by other people who are not breast-feeding the baby as well—meaning men, children, other family members, etc as Harding points out. Bottles are not made to fit only the shape of a woman’s hands, they are just made to hold—by anyone’s hands.

            As for Bentley’s argument, she seems merely to assert that commercialized and mass-produced baby foods (from companies like Gerber) caused the decrease in and displacement of breast-feeding, not whether it is a good or bad thing. But it is notable that Bentley focuses on the effect of ready-made solid foods on mothers especially, their misgivings and distrust of canned foods, their second-guessing of their parenting abilities in the face of medical authority, and their resultant “freedom and mobility” from this new convenience (78). Bentley’s article perhaps unwittingly so adheres to the notion of “biology as destiny”—the idea that since women have the physical/bodily ability to bear children and nurse them, they are therefore innate nurturers and providers and responsible for the raising of children. I cannot deny that women can lactate from their breasts in order to feed children where men usually cannot (why even have breasts if you can’t use them?), but I argue that this ability, or inability, does not make me (as a woman) an innate nurturer or provider and therefore solely obligated to child-rearing. I think the role of child-rearing and all that it entails is learned and assumed, rather than innate in any gender, even though society and politics often tell me I am wrong.

Works Cited

Bentley, Amy. “Feeding Baby, Teaching Mother: Gerber and the Evolution of Infant Food and Feeding Practices in the United States.” Avakian, Arlene Voski and Barbara Haber, eds. From Betty Crocker to Feminist Food Studies: Critical Perspectives on Women and Food. Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 2005. 62-88.

Harding, Kate. “Throwing the baby out with the breast pump.” Salon.com. 12 Jan 2009. Web. http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2009/01/12/breastfeeding_101

Lepore, Jill. “Baby Food.” The New Yorker. 19 Jan 2009. Web. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/19/090119fa_fact_lepore