Tamara Ecclestone, breastfeeding, and how it feels to see representations of love that you’re unable to give

Last week I was interested to see a picture of celebrity Tamara Ecclestone pop up on my newsfeed.

 

Source: BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38932320

Source: BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38932320

Tamara was shocked. Shocked and saddened that her valiant attempt to normalise breastfeeding through a stunning photoshoot had not been received with the blanket adulation that she had expected. More than that though, for Tamara there is nothing but love in the images and it’s such a shame that it brings out anger in some of you it’s sad for you that that’s how you choose to live.  Personally, I think that love may well have been the order of the day, but there were also probably more scatter cushions than there were in the John Lewis Christmas sale this year.

I don’t know why she would expect blanket adulation because my experience of being a woman and having access to the internet has shown me that I could post an image of a packet of crisps with a vagina and somebody would try to concern troll over what birth control it was using.  Post a picture of breastfeeding and you are guaranteed to uncover that very special type of person who is mortally offended by a nipple.  This is annoying and these people deserve to be treated as the newts that they are and I delight in doing so. However, the four of five newts come with legions of likes, shares and messages of support, as I’m sure Tamara’s PR team know well.

The thing is, we’ve seen these images before, Gisele did it, [here]. Body confidence advocate Tess Holliday used the women’s marches two weeks ago to do it [here] and this week, it’s Tamara’s turn [here].  All of these images have striking similarities.  We see beautiful, wealthy, white and glamorous women gazing off into the distance while effortlessly nurturing wide-eyed babies (scatter cushions optional).  These women are professionals at re-packaging our bodies as an ideal and selling them back to us, they have a team of PR execs and agents to help them in their quest for self-promotion and this is exactly what’s happening here. Usually we are allowed to be angry about the lack of realism and unattainability of things like the thigh gap, but here the product is breastmilk and it’s different rules.

In the UK, 81% or women initiate breastfeeding whilst they are in hospital.  Given that figure, it’s hard to keep a straight face when someone tells you that seeing someone breastfeed is some sort of revelation, but they do.  By the time the baby is six weeks old that figure falls to 55% and by six months, it’s at 1%.  Of those women who stop breastfeeding, 80% of them desperately wanted to but could not. These women have internalised the mantra breast is best and they’ve given it everything they’ve got but come away feeling like abject failures when their breastfeeding dreams didn’t come true.

For them, when they see an image like that with the words powerful demonstration of love and nurturing it feels like a kick in the teeth. As I imagine it does for those among the 20% who don’t attempt to breastfeed because they’re transgender or survivors of sexual violence, on certain medications or adoptive parents, or because it simply isn’t the best choice for their family.  For those parents all they can hear is:

A powerful demonstration of love and nurturing THAT YOU CAN’T GIVE.

That you can’t give, written as if by sparkler; bright, hot, fleeting and gas lit. Or worse, that you are too selfish to give. Of course there is anger.

The late John Berger wrote a lot about advertising and how it works.  To skim it, a good advertising campaign creates a tableau that we all recognise subconsciously to some extent, like the Madonna and Child. You foreground a product of lifestyle that is difficult but perhaps not impossible to imagine yourself attaining, this creates envy.  Then you distribute it far and wide. If it’s something that everybody can have it simply won’t sell as either an image or product.  I mean I love my Henry the Hoover, it never lets me down. I’m never going to make it look like Tamara makes breastmilk look because it is so very mundane and attainable.

If you haven’t yet read Berger’s book Ways of Seeing then you should, because he also makes the point that:

“[P]ublicity turns consumption into a substitute for democracy. The choice of what one eats […] takes the place of significant political choice. Publicity helps to mask and compensate for all that is undemocratic within society. And it also masks what is happening in the rest of the world.” [Berger: Ways of Seeing, p. 149]

 

Tamara and her photographer’s image, and those that came before are the epitome of the genre. Glamorous and unattainable, always just slightly beyond reach.  Why? Because for all of the hashtags and so called ‘normalising’, they do nothing to address the structural inequalities that mean that none of us really gets to choose to live the way we would really like. They are publicity as a mask.

The NHS is struggling and with maternity services, according to the National Health Executive report of January 2017, disturbingly high numbers of women are experiencing so-called ‘red-flag’ events.  What are ‘red-flag events’? They’re events that happen because we simply do not have enough care for women, even to the point that of women not receiving one-to-one care during established labour. If we can’t even ensure that women have that level of care when they’re giving birth can we hope for better during the post natal period and with breastfeeding support? No prizes here for guessing that no, we can’t:

During the post natal period, women were most likely to express disappointment with their experience in the postnatal wards and breastfeeding support. (Source:  National Health Executive report of January 2017)

On occasions where we have actually spoken to women who found themselves unable to breastfeed over dismissing them as bitter and hateful trolls, we find that something like 80% cite pain as a key reason that they were unable to continue. If a mother simply cannot get the help that she needs from a dedicated professional then she cannot continue.

Since 2010 the UK has faced austerity and whether or not you agree with the necessity, in March 2016 the Women’s Budget Group found that women are hit harder than men and households headed by women such as lone parents […] are hit harder. What does this mean for mothers? It means cash in hand, manual labour jobs where you can’t have your children with you. It means no maternity leave because you’re restricted to short-term, temporary contracts. It means not being able to afford the bus fare to get to the doctors when you have mastitis or to pay for the prescription for medicines you might need to treat it. It means choosing between heating and eating. It means that having the time, energy or will to go through the pain of establishing breastfeeding may well not be at the very top of your agenda.

If you do have a job that you are able to go back to, there is unsurprisingly yet more bad news. The House of Commons committee on Pregnancy and Maternity Discrimination, tells us that not only is there more discrimination reported now than a decade ago, but also there is no legal duty to provide a place to breastfeed or store milk. So even women who are able to afford the highest levels of childcare may not be able to continue to breastfeed their babies until two years of age.

These images are beautiful and modern reinterpretations of the Madonna and child tableau, chic and classic, but they do nothing to address any of the challenges faced by women today. baby-jesusEven if women in their droves started saying that had they just seen one more photo they could have breastfed on, I don’t know if this one would really help. We already know that wealthy, well-educated and thirty something are more likely to breastfeed, it’s already normal. Most of us could only dream of owning that many scatter cushions in a lifetime and one of her shoes could probably cover at least a month’s rent. As a twenty-two year old, pregnant dropout who just couldn’t get her breasts to co-operate, the only thing that image would have done for me is amplify my failure on every single count.  With the benefit of hindsight, and good research, I now know that I’m not alone.

 

Breastfeeding a new baby is already normal, breastfeeding a two year old has yet to become the norm. When every parent has the luxury of choice over how and for how long they feed their babies, it most likely will. Papering over the cracks with a few Instagram snaps and calling your critics angry and bitter isn’t going to cut it.  We need to meet every obstacle head on. We need to treat our fellow parents with empathy.  Above all, we need to support each other.

#ISupportYou.

Stephanie Maia is a UK-based writer for FearlessFormulaFeeder.com and the #ISupportYou movement.

It’s Not About the Brelfie

For obvious reasons, I get excited whenever the media takes notice of how formula feeding parents are feeling.

That’s what happened yesterday, when the media (and my email, Twitter and Facebook feed) exploded with the news of a new campaign meant to fight back against breastfeeding pressure, using the hashtag “#bressure”. When I first read the articles about the movement, I noticed the positive (attention to the experience of “failing” to meet breastfeeding recommendations) and ignored the references to the “brelfies”, breastfeeding photos which apparently spurred the campaign in the first place. I even sent a letter to the creators, praising them and asking if the FFF community could contribute in some way.

But as the day wore on, red flags started popping up. First, a fellow blogger alerted me to the fact that the survey conducted by the Bressure movement alluded to breastfeeding selfies as “sexualized”. Then, every single article I read focused on how these (apparently sexualized) “brelfies” were directly causing pain and suffering to bottle feeders. Instead of talking about the systemic issues that create a cycle of guilt, fear, and competition, we were once again dragging the conversation down into the mommy-war gutter, pitting woman against woman, and continuing the seemingly endless divide between breastfeeding and formula feeding moms.

This is not progress.

I’ve run a modestly large international community of formula feeding parents for the past six years, and I know several truths:

1. Formula feeders are a diverse group, just as breastfeeders are a diverse group. There are militant, intolerant formula feeding parents who truly do believe that women shouldn’t breastfeed in public, just as there are militant, intolerant breastfeeding mothers who believe formula feeders are selfish, ignorant, and useless. I wish we could vote them all off the island, but alas, such is life. The problem is that we’re letting these factions monopolize the conversation. This is EXACTLY why we started #ISupportYou, to which there was a rather vocal backlash from the intolerant/militant faction, on both sides.

2. The media loves drama. It is so much more fun to blame “brelfies” for the pain we formula feeders endure, because then the extremists come out of the woodwork and create mile-long comment sections, boosting your traffic for the next few days. It is also easier to get inflammatory quotes when nuance is ignored. Nuance doesn’t get web traffic or media attention. Trust me on that one; I speak from experience.

3. Seeing breastfeeding photos is undeniably difficult for those of us who wanted to breastfeed and couldn’t, or feel conflicted about our choices. When we’re feeling vulnerable and judged, it can definitely feel like that model/celeb/Facebook friend’s breastfeeding selfie is intentionally meant to twist the knife a little deeper. But that shouldn’t stop a mom from posting a breastfeeding photo, any more than you should refrain from posting a shot of your newborn when your second cousin is struggling with fertility issues. Both of you have the right to your feelings – your pride, her grief. (That said, there’s the social media-era problem with all of us comparing ourselves to others, posting things we’d never say to someone’s face, and basically acting like insensitive jerks every time we hit “post”.)

4. The breastfeeding selfies themselves are not the problem, but the  “#breastisbest #breastfeedingmomsrule #whatsyoursuperpower hashtags can be construed as an attack on formula feeding moms. That’s not me telling you to stop doing them, just explaining why the photos might hurt your best friend who switched to formula three weeks ago. That is not me telling you that the cause of normalizing breastfeeding isn’t important, just explaining why there might be better ways to achieve the same goals without adding to the conflict. Just like this latest “bressure” video series could have had a hugely positive impact, if the impetus behind it didn’t sound like bitterness and jealousy and a who-has-it-worse competition.

5. There’s enough anger, misunderstanding, and generalization on both sides of this debate to fill several football stadiums. When the media chooses to focus on something trivial (“brelfies” – for the love of god, who though of that term) instead of the real issues, we all lose. Personally, it makes me feel like I might as well jump in my DeLorean and head back to 2008, because what the hell have I wasted the past 6 years of my life on?

6. The top reasons that formula feeders are angry, based on my totally unscientific, not-peer-reviewed but at least peer-collected research, are the following:

We are made to feel like inferior mothers by medical professionals, websites, fellow moms, lactation consultants, mommy-and-me group leaders, and the media.

 

We get no guidance or education on bottle feeding from professionals, and when we seek it out, we get conflicting info peppered with constant reminders of why we really should be breastfeeding, so why even bother attempting to find the best type of formula, since they’re all crap, anyway?

 

The reasons that breastfeeding advocates and the media give for us “failing” to meet their recommendations are so far from our lived realities, it’s hard to believe we exist in the same dimension.

 

Everything having to do with babies these days – from conferences to books to radio shows – focuses on breastfeeding. If bottle feeding is mentioned, it’s typically in the context of Things To Avoid At All Costs Unless You Really Have to Go Back to Work In Which Case You Should Just Pump or At Absolute Worst Use Donor Milk.

 

Yes, there are many breastfeeding advocates who come to troll on our pages and provoke our anger. And yes, there are formula feeders who will do the same on breastfeeding pages. Ignore these people. They do not matter. There are more of us middle-ground, moderate folks than there are of them.

 

While mom-to-mom cruelty is certainly a part of the problem, we know that there’s a much larger battle to fight – the battle of scientific illiteracy and paternalistic advocate-physician/researchers who are blinded by a religious belief in breastfeeding. If the bullies didn’t have certain unnamed, infamous physicians leading their charge – people who encourage the shaming and ridiculing of formula feeding parents – they wouldn’t have so much power. If society had a better understanding of the reality of infant feeding research, and could acknowledge that correlation and causation are two different animals, it would take away the fear and guilt, on ALL sides.

We just want to be equal with you. Not better. We’re not even asking you to think that formula and breastmilk are equal – that’s a question of science, of risk/benefit analysis, and individual circumstance. All we are asking is that we do not equate the type of liquid going into our children’s bellies with how much we love them, or how bonded we are with them, or how strong/capable/dedicated we are as parents.

 

This is not about photos. This is not about who has it worse. This is not even about breastfeeding and formula feeding, anymore. It’s about how we view motherhood as a competition, how the powers that be monopolize on this competition, and how the media loves to encourage it. Instead of focusing on brelfies or bressure, let’s get the hell off Instagram and start making an impact in our own communities, with our own friends and fellow parents. Ignore the hype, and focus on the help.

A picture tells a thousand words. But they don’t have to be negative ones.

10375900_1439008036383187_5921795032528045698_n

Breastfeeding might not protect kids from obesity. So what?

The past few days have produced a flurry of articles on how breastfeeding may not protect against obesity. You’d think I’d be shouting an obnoxiously loud DUH or TOLD YOU SO. Instead, I want to poke my eyes out and claw at my ears until they bleed. That’s maybe slightly dramatic, but seriously – I’m at my wit’s end, here.

The truth is, there have been quite a few studies and reviews that showed negligible or conflicting results regarding the effect of infant feeding practice on later obesity (ie, this one, this one, or this one). That hasn’t stopped numerous government or health organization from urging us to support breastfeeding because it will solve the obesity epidemic, opting to focus on this convoluted claim rather than the myriad of health benefits that have been repeated consistently over metastudies and reviews (i.e., lower risk of gastrointestinal infection, lower risk of ear infections, hell, even the IQ thing is more soundly supported by the research).

I get why there’s more attention being paid to this finding – it comes from the PROBIT study, which is the closest thing we have to a randomized, controlled experiment in the infant feeding world (other than sibling studies, of which there have been exactly two- at least that I’ve been able to unearth). For those who don’t spend their free time reading the canon of breastfeeding research, let me give you the Cliff’s Notes: PROBIT was a study undertaken in Belarus, which had low breastfeeding rates at the time. They took a cohort of pregnant moms and gave one randomized group more intensive prenatal breastfeeding education and baby-friendly hospital etiquette when they delivered; the other group got the status quo by way of breastfeeding support. The thought was, the group that got better education and support would breastfeed more exclusively and for longer; the other group probably wouldn’t.

Are you confused? You should be. The thing that puzzles me (and hopefully you as well) is that while this plan might have convinced more women to initiate breastfeeding, the same pitfalls that plague all breastfeeding research still remain. Some of the women in the “breastfeeding friendly” group still – presumably – could not breastfeed for physical reasons, others may have chosen not to. All this study can really show us, after all the necessary confounders are accounted for, is whether this type of breastfeeding promotion and support can increase breastfeeding rates. Otherwise, it’s basically more of the same. There are still fundamental differences in the women who were able to breastfeed and those that couldn’t/didn’t.

But, for whatever reason (desperation?) the medical and advocacy communities have grasped onto PROBIT as the Holy Grail of irrefutable breastfeeding science. So, if PROBIT shows that breastfeeding confers no protective effect against obesity, that means something. (Incidentally, as the babies involved in PROBIT get older, I’m sure we will see a lot of headlines on the long-term effects of breastfeeding… so if you’re interested in this stuff, try and familiarize yourself with it now. Here’s some good literature on it, to get you started.)

While I believe, based on my reading of additional research into the obesity link (more on this in Bottled Up, not that I’m plugging my book or anything. I mean why would I have to, book sales being as horrible great as they are?), that there truly is little to no advantage to breastfeeding in regards to later obesity, there’s no excuse for bad science or bad reporting. And this, my friends, is a both. We are taking ONE finding from ONE study – a well-designed one, to be sure, but far from perfect or immune from the problems plaguing most infant feeding research- and proclaiming its results as absolute truth. The sad thing is, some of the biggest breastfeeding advocates are just as guilty of this as the knee-jerking media: Dr. Ruth Lawrence, one of the founders of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine, even admitted that she was “disappointed” about the result (although as someone so wisely pointed out on our FFF Facebook page, how freaking ridiculous is it that she is “disappointed” to find out that the vast majority of Western babies – being that they are nearly all at least partially bottle fed – are not doomed to a life of morbid obesity just because their mothers were “suboptimal” breastfeeders?? And what does this suggest about the inherent bias of breastfeeding researchers?).

The near-hysteria surrounding this finding is just further evidence of how warped our thinking is around infant feeding. Why is it such a big deal that breastfeeding doesn’t solve the obesity epidemic? Because we’ve made it a big deal. We’ve built a house of cards on top of this one health claim: it’s the basis of the First Lady’s push to support breastfeeding; Mike Bloomberg has used it to justify locking up formula in NYC hospitals; pretty much every article about breastfeeding in the past year has suggested that formula fed babies better start saving up for Lap Band surgery. The grotesque amount of fat-hating aside (because if you think formula feeders have it bad, you should see how awfully we treat overweight people in our public health discourse), it’s ridiculous that we’ve focused so much attention on this supposed benefit of breastfeeding when common sense says that our nation’s growing waistlines are due to a multitude of factors – genetics, cultural differences, lack of clean air/safe streets/room to move in our cities, processed food, sedentary lifestyles, the time we waste on the (ahem) internet….

My hope is that breastfeeding advocates and health officials might learn from this; that they might take a step back and reassess the way they are promoting something that should be a basic human right as a medical necessity. But at the very least, I hope this will be a cautionary tale for those of us who strive for critical thinking to remain skeptical of absolutism, in both science and in life.

 

WHO versus CDC growth charts: WHO cares?

Ah, infant growth charts. Aside from those on your junior year SAT math section, no graph can inspire more fear and concern. FC’s percentile chart looks like a death-defying roller coaster – from the 10th to the 75th to the 25th. Fearlette’s is always at a consistent 20th, but considering her height was in the 75th, her weight to length line is disturbingly close to the bottom of the page.

I hate those growth charts.
According to yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, so do many other parents. Columnist Melinda Beck reports that: 
Parents often worry that their children are too tall, too short, too fat or too thin. These days, however, more kids are measuring “off the charts”—either above or below the standard ranges for height and weight that pediatricians use.

The wide variations are due in part to rising obesity rates, an increase in premature infants who survive, and a population that is growing more diverse. Yet the official growth charts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention still reflect the size distribution of U.S. children in the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s. The CDC says it doesn’t plan to adjust its charts because it doesn’t want the ever-more-obese population to become the new norm.

Beck goes on to explain how many are lobbying for the American Academy of Pediatrics to adopt WHO growth charts, as our current ones don’t reflect the growth patterns of breastfed babies. The movement has been going on for awhile, and I think it’s important to understand how the two types of growth charts differ.

The WHO growth charts are meant to act as a normative standard, as they were based on children who fulfilled specific criteria – “proper” nutrition (breastfeeding exclusively with complementary solids starting between 4-6 months), born at a healthy gestational age and weight, living with sufficient socioeconomic conditions, decent healthcare and breastfeeding support, etc. The charts are based on records of children fulfilling this criteria in Brazil, Ghana, India, Norway, Oman, and California between the years of 1997-2003.

The CDC growth charts are simply a snapshot of one general population (the midwestern United States) over 30 years. No babies were excluded based on any criteria. You can think about it like this: the WHO charts are based on an ideal; the CDC charts are based on a time-and-location-specific reality.

I am not a fan of the CDC charts. Just as they do not accurately address the growth trends of breastfed babies,  one could easily say that the current growth charts also fail to reflect the social, ethnic, environmental, and hell, I’ll say it – evolutionary – factors which are contributing to larger babies.

The problem is, neither do the WHO charts – in fact, I fear they will only make things worse.

There seem to be two separate concerns being expressed within this particular debate: one, that breastfeeding moms are being mistakenly informed that their babies aren’t growing sufficiently on breastmilk alone; two, that our nation’s babies are a lot bigger than they used to be, and the growth charts don’t reflect this. These two problems have incompatible solutions. Adopting a chart which skews lighter, as the WHO charts do, might help the breastfed kids seem more “normal”, but it would also make the majority of babies in this country seem disproportionately bigger. If it were an indisputable fact that larger babies were inherently unhealthy, one could argue that categorizing more babies as outside the “ideal” would be a good thing. As far as I know that isn’t the case. There is some correlation between faster weight gain in infancy and later obesity, but this is still a rather tenuous correlation considering the quality of the studies which suggest it. By adopting the WHO charts, I fear we will suddenly see an “epidemic” of “obese babies”; next thing you know we will be putting 4-month-olds on diets.  I know it sounds CoCo Puff Crazy, but check out what the authors of this report from the CDC comparing the two types of growth charts said about the subject:

Clinicians should recognize that the WHO charts are intended to reflect optimal growth of infants and children. Although many children in the United States have not experienced the optimal environmental, behavioral, or health conditions specified in the WHO study, the charts are intended for use with all children aged <24 months. Therefore, their growth might not always follow the patterns shown in the WHO curves. For example, formula-fed infants tend to gain weight more rapidly after approximately age 3 months and therefore cross upward in percentiles, perhaps becoming classified as overweight. Although no evidence-based guidelines for treating overweight in infancy exist, early recognition of a tendency toward obesity might appropriately trigger interventions to slow the rate of weight gain.

I’m not convinced breastfed babies would be immune to the Obese Baby label, either. The WHO growth standards on not based on American children; there are genetic, ethnic, and situational factors that play into growth, weight, and length of babies. We tend to be a rather, er, well-fed bunch; maternal diet can affect the amount of fat and other nutritional content of breastmilk, and the lifestyle of the mother can dictate how much milk a baby receives. An exclusively breastfeeding mom who works full time will likely have a baby who is bottle-fed breastmilk as much or more than s/he feeds at the breast;  studies have shown that it may be more the mechanism of feeding than the type of milk which influences weight gain.

Nor would universal adoption of the WHO charts necessarily negate a physician’s desire for intervention when weight gain plummets downwards. One of the women interviewed for the WSJ piece was a woman whose “5-month-old son, Elias, has slipped from the 50th to the 25th percentile.” Her answer to the guilt inflicted on her by her pediatrician was to consider “taking a leave from her job as an associate professor of human development at California State University, Long Beach, so she’ll be available to nurse on demand.”

A drop from the 50th to the 25th percentile at 5 months might not be seen as a cause for concern if pediatricians were trained in the growth patterns of WHO chart-compliant babies. But I think this quote underscores the problem with any type of growth chart: every situation is different. We don’t know enough about this woman’s story to know whether her doctor was an anti-breastfeeding alarmist, or merely a follower of the Hippocratic oath. (Please note: I am not making any sort of judgment on this mother’s situation, but I also think we need to look at these types of anecdotes critically, as they tend to get used as fodder for the ongoing infant feeding debate. I’m looking at the quote alone within context of the article, and trying to point out that there may be additional layers to the story, and that the solution may not be as simplistic as adopting new growth criteria.) Why would the mom feel the need to quit her job and “nurse more” as the solution? To me, this suggests that the mom feels her time away from the breast is the problem – it could be that the baby has a problem taking a bottle, or the mom has a problem expressing enough milk.I’d also question, since the drop in weight occurred around 5 months, whether adding solids might be a solution. There has been discussion in the medical community about relaxing the “six months exclusive breastfeeding” rule to “four months exclusive” at which point solids can be added to the diet, based on individual readiness and need. Perhaps this baby is one who is both ready and needy for a bit more sustenance. This has nothing to do with the adequacy of his mother’s milk or her employment status. Nor does it have anything to do with formula supplementation or which growth charts are being used. 
I understand the argument that the current charts are outdated in pretty much every way possible, and need to change. But I think a more helpful solution would to be to stop being slave to the percentiles, and instead use them – perhaps the CDC ones for formula fed babies, and the WHO one for breastfed babies – as merely a guide. If a baby is healthy, growing, and meeting developmental milestones, then who cares if she is in the 10th or the 80th? Especially if our only choices are to compare that a baby living in 2012 in Tuscon, Arizona to either some statistical hybrid of Gambian and Norwegian babies, or one from Wisconsin in the 1970s. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the current system judges all babies (and parents) by unfair standards, and not allow this to be more kindling for the breast versus bottle pyre.

Celebrity culture and infant feeding: Does breastfeeding need a makeover, or a makeunder?

There’s a startling disconnect inherent in the way our society views infant feeding. On a daily basis, I see vomit-worthy comments posted on Twitter disparaging mothers who are committing the mortal sin of nursing in public – some recent gems included a tweet from a guy who got his jollies waiting for a nip slip from breastfeeding moms, and several women taking cheap shots at “exhibitionist” moms who were “grossing them out” by feeding their babies in plain sight. Seeing this, I can absolutely understand the need for breastfeeding to get an “extreme makeover” in our culture; I can start to see why online discussions about the need for bottle-feeding support devolve into defensive diatribes about how we (FFFs) are in the majority, and have no comparable need for sisterhood.

And yet, my Twitter feed serves as a stark contrast to my other guilty pleasure – celebrity culture. We may live in a “bottle feeding society”, but breastfeeding has become a rite of passage among the pop-cultural elite. Just for fun, I spent a few days googling every single famous mom who had given birth in the past year or two, and almost every single one had a photo, interview, or online mention about how they were breastfeeding, or at least planning on it. The few who didn’t either adopted, or made it a point to explain why they weren’t (Tina Fey, Bryce Dallas-Howard). From hard-living rockstars like Pink, to pin-ups like Alyssa Milano, January Jones, and Beyonce, to girls-next-door like Sarah Drew, Alyson Hannigan, and Jenna Fischer, to the French first lady Carla Bruni... it seems as if everyone on the A, B, and C-lists were using their A, B and C cups (even the enhanced ones, a la Tori Spelling) for their evolutionary/biological purpose.

I’ve talked before about how important perspective and environment are in this discourse: two women in the same city could have markedly different experiences with infant feeding support, depending on their socioeconomic and cultural surroundings, as well as their individual peer groups. I live in Los Angeles, a stone’s throw away from Hollywood, so looking at this list of happily-lactating celebutantes clarifies why I felt so alone in my bottle-feeding days. But I realize my breastfeeding-friendly area is nothing like where so many women live, places where they feel ostracized every time they lift a shirt to feed a crying baby. I know this alienation is real; one look at Twitter proves that, and then some. I’m not sure what’s worse – enduring the threat of borderline sexual harassment each time you breastfeed, or having famous physicians tell you that you are harming your baby by not trying hard enough to give them their birthright of mother’s milk. I think it’s probably a toss-up, or at least depends on your psychological makeup and personal triggers.

However, I think lactivism needs to take a serious look at US Weekly before focusing more attention on “glamorizing” breastfeeding. It’s been glamorized. And yet, women are still experiencing ignorance and intolerance about nursing their babies (or toddlers). Celebrity culture has tremendous influence – the advertising industry capitalizes on this; think about how many famous folks endorse the products you purchase, directly or indirectly. Numerous articles have been written about how celebrity post-baby weight loss has a negative impact on our collective psyche; we supposedly watch them shrink in a matter of weeks and believe that’s how postpartum bodies should act (incidentally, most of them attribute their miraculous weight loss to breastfeeding).  If we see a Kardashian pushing a certain type of stroller on their insipid reality show, it becomes a hot seller the very next day. Depressing as it is, our society looks to the bobbleheads on the television for guidance on style and substance. So why isn’t it working with breastfeeding?

Seeing Victoria Beckham or Miranda Kerr or Hilary Duff breastfeed doesn’t make an impact, because of course these women are breastfeeding. They have the resources to do so – flexible and accommodating work environments, nannies, housekeepers, access to superior healthcare providers, support, and most importantly, they live in breastfeeding-friendly environments. How is this making breastfeeding look any more do-able to the average woman? It might make it look more attractive, but not more attainable.

So, maybe the focus should be less on giving breastfeeding a makeover, but rather a makeunder. Focus on making it more accessible and attainable to those who are struggling to make ends meet, to those who not only are lacking a nanny and personal trainer, but also a supportive partner; the ability to switch to a breastfeeding-friendly pediatrician; money to see a private lactation consultant, or a car to drive to see that consultant.

And from a formula feeder’s point of view, I want to make one last point: breastfeeding moms have their choice of role models. Maggie Gyllenhal, Marion Cotillard, Jennifer Gardner… Women who are opting not to breastfeed have Snooki, who recently was accused of saying breastfeeding is “kind of like you’re a cow” (although for the record, she was just talking about pumping, which she intends to do – she was scared of breastfeeding because her friends had experienced trouble…but I digress):

Source: http://www.hollywoodlife.com/2012/06/11/snooki-breastfeeding-cow-interview/

Speaking of makeovers….

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...