On pumping

Several friends of mine emailed me this week to let me know about an article in a recent New Yorker on the topic of the breast pump and the phenomenon of pumping. One friend was kind enough to forward me the electronic link, as she's a subscriber, and I took her advice and read the article, yes, while pumping at work.

I got my Medela Freestyle -- a small but costly device -- with all of the other baby paraphernalia well before Oliver was born. On the one hand, it kind of saved my butt -- or breasts, I guess -- since I had such a hard time getting him to nurse. On the other hand, would I have persisted more in getting him latched, despite frustrations, if it hadn't been available? Like so many things in childrearing, it's hard to know as I can't go back and do it again. It did make me feel better to get him off the formula as quickly as possible and onto all breastmilk, even though it was through a bottle. And I did persist with the breastfeeding, as it's a far cry more convenient, in my opinion, than pumping and bottling.

The author of the article seemed to be focused on the conflation of the terms breastfeeding (or nursing) and feeding a baby breastmilk. Thanks to the popularity and accessibility of affordable breastpumps, these two things are no longer one and the same. The author's message, however, remains a bit of a mystery to me. Perhaps I'm just not a strong enough reader, but I often get lost in New Yorker articles -- they just go all over the place. The author aruges at one point that the benefits of breastfeeding have to do with "cuddling your baby" or that they come from "smiling and cuddling," but acknowledges in the same paragraph that this is "stuff that people who aren't breast-feeding can give babies, too." The author notes how odd it is that breast pumps are used as a way to encourage breastfeeding, since you don't need the former to do the latter. Said author acknowledges in the same article, though, that a breast pump is essential for women who can't be or choose not to be tethered to their infant 24/7 for the duration of breastfeeding (for most women, just a few months, but for others 6-12 months or even more). For those of us who work outside the home -- or any woman who wants to get out on her own for a few hours -- a breast pump is a necessary evil. It's dreadfully boring and tedious to pump, and it's annoying to constantly be washing pump pieces and bottles, but it's nice to be able to assuage some of the guilt one feels in returning to work. The author further argues that in some cases breast pumps encourage women to pump and bottle rather than nurse. To this, I would respond, 1) where is the data for that?and 2) so what? If women choose to do this, isn't that okay? The author herself concedes that the bonding-through-feeding can happen breast or not, and if this method encourages women to serve up "the medical science of human milk," as she calls it, then great! Not every woman finds breastfeeding the "womanly art" that LLLC markets it as. I'll admit to a few blissful moments of staring down at Ollie while he eats, but for the most part, I nurse because it's more convenient for me than pumping all the time and because, based on what I've read, it offers health benefits that formula cannot replicate.

The author of the article seems to suggest that the real solution to getting women to nurse longer, without the contraptions, is at-work childcare centers or longer maternity leave. Of course, with the state of economy what it is, I hardly think this is going to happen for any time soon. For now, the book closet at the back of my classroom and fifteen minutes a morning with my Medela will have to suffice.