We Over-Privileged Bitches Who Dare Not To Breastfeed

| Sun Mar. 15, 2009 8:29 AM PDT

My friend Hanna Rosin has such a deliciously subversive piece in the latest Atlantic that I've spent days over my witch's cauldron of a laptop diabolically trying to figure out which plums to excerpt for maximum outrage. The piece is called, (tee hee) The Case Against Breastfeeding. Pissed off yet? Good.

So, where to begin? What will most offend the tender sensibilities of MoJo's oh-so-progressive readers? How about this, the subhead?

In certain overachieving circles, breast-feeding is no longer a choice—it's a no-exceptions requirement, the ultimate badge of responsible parenting. Yet the actual health benefits of breast-feeding are surprisingly thin, far thinner than most popular literature indicates. Is breast-feeding right for every family? Or is it this generation’s vacuum cleaner—an instrument of misery that mostly just keeps women down?

Wha? I never miss Hanna's work, but this time, she had me at "instrument of misery." I just hope the drool doesn't crash my keyboard. The science behind 'breast is best' is bogus, just another conspiracy to keep those of us with vaginas barefoot and topless in public? Yes, as it turns out—the science is bogus. Can't tell that from, oh, what our pediatricians and 'lactation consultants' tell us, could we?

I only breastfed both my kids off and on, the first for about six months, the second for at most four. Why? There was a minor (though, with great effort fixable) health issue. But mostly it just felt so selfish. There was my then husband and my mom, both of whom had to sit there tapping their feet with lust to get at those luscious babies who spent most of their time latched onto me like lovely little leeches.

In the beginning, I pumped just so they could have that special feeding/bonding time with those precious bundles gripping so tightly with those little fingers. Truly—breastfeeding felt selfish. Which means that more or less subconsciously, I just didn't buy that they'd grow up to be hunchbacked mental deficients without my precious boob juice. There simply had to be too many other variables at play. I'm almost 50, so you know I wasn't breastfed, and I'm pretty smart and pretty healthy, like most folks of my generation. And remember—our parents drank and smoked the whole time (though not my mom. But it wasn't because she thought it would hurt us. Booze and cigs just were never her thing.)

 

My mom couldn't help me with the breastfeeding and, with my ineptitude, the little buggers hurt the hell out of me. I dutifully visited and revisited the lactation consultant but kept peppering her with questions about why formula was so bad, and how much mixing formula with breast milk might hurt them. Finally, she laid down the law:

"Look, I'm not here to tell you it's OK not to breastfeed, Debra."

I thought about that for a minute. Then said, "Fair enough." So I pumped less and less and joined the Enfamil crowd.

As Hanna admits in her piece, feeding time didn't feel any more special to me than any of the other hours I spent dreamily nibbling their toes and pretending to make stuffed animals dance. The time that was most special to me was, after eating, when they'd happily lose consciousness and burrow into my chest. So warm, so content, so secure. That time was sublime to me, that was when I felt most maternal. Breastfeeding was a time-consuming painful chore I didn't think worth it.

And when the folks in my tony, Ivy League crowd gave me the stink-eye as I whipped out a bottle, I just shrugged it off. When you have kids, the world is full of folks telling you you're doing it all wrong. But unless they're willing to walk the floor with my kids all night when they're sick, they can just suck it. Breastfeeding just wasn't high on my list of priorities in an over-stressed life. Besides, I had to work like a dog. Breastfeeding made a difficult career even more difficult, and something simply had to give.

Which gets me to the excerpt I'll leave you with, in hopes that you'll beat feet, in high dudgeon of course, to read the piece in full:

The Bitch in the House, published in 2002, reframed The Feminine Mystique for my generation of mothers. We were raised to expect that co-parenting was an attainable goal. But who were we kidding? Even in the best of marriages, the domestic burden shifts, in incremental, mostly unacknowledged ways, onto the woman. Breast-feeding plays a central role in the shift. In my set, no husband tells his wife that it is her womanly duty to stay home and nurse the child. Instead, both parents together weigh the evidence and then make a rational, informed decision that she should do so. Then other, logical decisions follow: she alone fed the child, so she naturally knows better how to comfort the child, so she is the better judge to pick a school for the child and the better nurse when the child is sick, and so on. Recently, my husband and I noticed that we had reached the age at which friends from high school and college now hold positions of serious power. When we went down the list, we had to work hard to find any women. Where had all our female friends strayed? Why had they disappeared during the years they’d had small children?
The debate about breast-feeding takes place without any reference to its actual context in women's lives. Breast-feeding exclusively is not like taking a prenatal vitamin. It is a serious time commitment that pretty much guarantees that you will not work in any meaningful way. Let's say a baby feeds seven times a day and then a couple more times at night. That's nine times for about a half hour each, which adds up to more than half of a working day, every day, for at least six months. This is why, when people say that breast-feeding is "free," I want to hit them with a two-by-four. It's only free if a woman's time is worth nothing.
How dare she? What an awful woman! Her children should be taken away! Or, maybe, we should all just mind our own business.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Debra J. Dickerson is a columnist for Mother Jones. For more of her stories, click here.

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.

Comments

Breastfeeding

What a selfish, self-serving woman this author is. I'm glad I'm not her child. Over-privileged is correct and then some. And the article needs some good fact-checking, as it is misleading regarding the health benefits of breast feeding vs. bottle. Bottle feeding, how unnatural. This author actually disgusts me. Typical self-serving drivel.

Thank you

This was my first visit to Mother Jones and low and behold THIS crap is what I end up reading...? Wow, this woman has issues. Not only is she self-indulgent she is a poor writer to boot. Bottle feeding is just as good as breast feeding? You should tell that to all of those women in China who lost their babies to tainted formula. Here is some reliable science on the benefits of breast feeding: Breast-Feeding and Neuroblastoma, USA and Canada Julie L. Daniels, Andrew F. Olshan, Brad H. Pollock, Narayan R. Shah and Daniel O. Stram Cancer Causes & Control, Vol. 13, No. 5 (Jun., 2002), pp. 401-405 Breastfeeding and Breast Cancer Risk Louise A. Brinton, Nancy A. Potischman, Christine A. Swanson, Janet B. Schoenberg, Ralph J. Coates, ... more Cancer Causes & Control, Vol. 6, No. 3 (May, 1995), pp. 199-208 Breast-Feeding Best Bet for babies http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/895_brstfeed.html This woman clearly is looking for an excuse why was right in choosing not to breastfeed her children.

Wow, I actually liked the

Wow, I actually liked the article. Maybe all of you who think you are superior to women who couldn't or didn't breastfeed should get a hobby? Honestly, attacking people in public (happened to me several times) and putting your noses in the air is not a good example to set for your children. Oh sure, they might be less sick than others (although mine have never had more than a cold..hmmmm), and get the +5 IQ (that study has been refuted anyway), but they MAY grow up to be self-righteous, intolerant people, just like their mothers. YUCK.

That post is pretty darn

That post is pretty darn accusatory, isn't it? Considering you're trying to prove a point against "self-righteous, intolerant people, just like their mothers. YUCK."

I don't judge what a mother chooses to do -- I don't know her background and I certainly don't know her child. There's no reason to judge a mom bottle feeding as being any different than a mom breastfeeding.

That said, there is no denying the benefits to breastfeeding. The benefits do not only apply to baby -- they apply to mommy as well. Quicker involution of the uterus, decreased risk of breast cancer and a decreased risk of cervical cancer, just to name a few.

I thank my lucky stars that I had such an awesome experience with my daughter. After 2 weeks of complete hell trying to breastfeeding, she and I finally got a hang of it. In the end, I was able to breastfeed smoothly for 14 months. No bottles to wash, no formula to buy, no temperature regulation, water soluble poops, nothing to pack aside from wipes and a diaper for outings. I'm forever grateful for the support I received.

So where's the fact checking?

Debra J. Dickerson Hana proferred a sustained and thorough debunking of the 'breast is best' 'scholarship.' You say she's wrong. So...do what she did. Prove your point. Your name-calling certainly proves her central one, aside from the 'scientific' myths.

name calling

debra, let's call it like is is! there was plenty of name calling in the other direction. she painted all of her fellow moms with the same education level and access to places to pump their breastmilk, or stroll into the same playgrounds, as idiots. why? because they made her feel bad that she didn't want yet another kid chewing on her. maybe she should have stopped at 2? and she even said no self respecting pregnant woman would actually think about what they were eating when pregnant. that it was all about the pregnant woman, so if she wanted to eat coconut cream pie (or whatever) that was her choice. no argument here that each woman should make her own choice (mine was to eat only for the baby for her 40 plus weeks in me and to breastfeed exclusively for well over two years and during that time i got a LOT of actual work done, thank you very much), but your buddy doesn't seem to have made a clear choice. she wants it both ways -- for breastfeeding not to be the landslide obvious you-have-to-do-it answer, and to be cuddling up to baby flesh. and she calls more names in the process of whining about not wanting to feel pressured to breastfeed than she has probably ever gotten in the playground, despite her paranoia about what the other moms are thinking. a seriously lame piece of journalism. but she certainly seems to have written it for attention, which she's clearly getting. very disappointed in The Atlantic and in The Today Show etc. for perpetuating this bull.

So this one woman alone has

So this one woman alone has debunked all of the "myths" surrounding breastfeeding? Let's review. Breastmilk contains antibodies, something formula will never be able to duplicate.The ingredients in common soy formula (Similac) are: Ingredients: 43.2% Corn syrup solids, 14.6% soy protein isolate, 11.5% high oleic safflower oil, 10.3% sugar (sucrose), 8.4% soy oil, 7.8% coconut oil; Less than 2% of: C. cohnii oil, M. alpina oil, calcium phosphate, potassium citrate, potassium chloride, magnesium chloride, sodium chloride, ascorbic acid, choline chloride, L-methionine, taurine, ascorbyl palmitate, ferrous sulfate, m-inositol, mixed tocopherols, zinc sulfate, d-alpha-tocopheryl acetate, L-carnitine, niacinamide, calcium pantothenate, cupric sulfate, thiamine chloride hydrochloride, vitamin A palmitate, riboflavin, pyridoxine hydrochloride, folic acid, potassium iodide, phylloquinone, biotin, sodium selenate, beta-carotene, vitamin D3 and cyanocobalamin. (http://www.allegromedical.com/dietary-supplements-c522/similac-isomil-ad...) I'm sorry, does this sound like something YOU would eat? For every meal? Every day for a year? Corn Syrup SOLIDS? Oil, sugar, and a multivitamin. And this costs $25 a can? And that is supposed to be PRO WOMAN? If you read about what is happening in the Phillippines, formula companies have always touted formula being a better alternative to breastfeeding. Yet families there are paying 1/4 of their income on formula? That is PRO FAMILY? And how many babies were sickened by poisoned formula in China? How many recalls have we had in the US alone? Forget about your upper class professional women for a moment, what about the 1.4 million who DIE yearly from not being breastfed? I think the MYTHS that breastfeeding keeps babies ALIVE, keeps them from DYING of diarrhea, malaria, fever, etc would be quite disputed by the CDC and Unicef (http://www.unicef.org/nutrition/index_breastfeeding.html) Breastfeeding lowers your own risk of developing reproductive cancers and other cancers, and also your children's(http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/93952.php) Breastmilk has a compound in it shown to kill cancer cells (http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/67446/breast_milk_compound_shown_to...) Breastfeeding lowers your risk of heart disease (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25177992-23290,00.html) and your children's (http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20071105/breastfeeding-may-preve...) Just in recent news, there has been a lot of literature of women with MS who should breastfeed INSTEAD OF WEANING AND TAKING ACTUAL MS MEDICATION because the breastfeeding lowers their risk of relapse. Maybe you did not take this into account when all you were thinking about were the Ivy League women at the park. (http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AAN/13030) Also, rheumatoid arthritis, I guess if that runs in your family, cutting your risk by HALF might be sort of a big deal for you. Might be able to push that Bugaboo a little bit easier. (http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=89463) Reduces the risk of SIDS by half? (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/589405) Gosh its starting to sound selfish NOT to breastfeed. And I didnt even get started on respiratory diseases, ear infections, basic resistance to viruses and bacteria. I didn't mention the AAPs statements on health and the importance of BFing for at least a year. I didn't even get started on the World Health Organization's strong feelings on the subject. Or the formula companies who refuse to abide by the WHO's code of marketing. I have three kids. Lets just say I gave up judging parents a long time ago. We all have our good and bad moments. I'd rather help than judge. I am not calling anyone a good mother because they BF, or a bad mother because they don't. But I am breastfeeding because it IS the better choice, should you have one. It IS healthier, it IS free (washing bottles, going shopping for supplies, getting up to make the bottles, packing for day and week long trips DOESN'T take time??). And dad doesn't need to sit around tapping his fingers waiting for baby. He can get himself acquainted with that old fashioned device that has trapped women for a century: the vaccuum cleaner. Until I am done nursing and he can hold, rock, change, bathe, kiss, cuddle, and have plenty of bonding time with our child.

Anyone who has taken a

tagged as: 
Anyone who has taken a physiology or biochemistry class knows that antibodies are made of protein and are broken down in the stomach just like any other protein. They never get to the blood stream if they are ingested. For the same reason insulin must be injected, not taken orally. The only way mom's milk would provide antibodies is if baby was injected with it.

How human milk antibodies protect human infants

Actually, the SIgA antibody is protected from digestion by the J chain which is attached to it. But the antibody is not absorbed into the baby anyway. It forms part of the mucosal immunity which prevents bacteria, viruses, etc from getting into the baby. (from Dr. Jack Newman)

Antibodies

Why did the oral flu vaccine work?

Antibodies

Why did the oral polio vaccine work?

antibodies in breastmilk

Noooo - milk antibodies do protect babies - before they are digested. It takes a couple of before SIgA digestion begins (it resists proteolysis). In the meantime, it attaches to the infant mucosa forming a barrier (think Pepto-bismol), and traps human pathogens. Before the baby is fed again, the few remaining germs can pass the mucosa and sensitize the baby's immune system (allowing him to produce his own germ-specific immunoglobulins when his immune system matures) At the same time, anti-inflammatory agents in the milk reduce side effects from this mild "infection". This is one story of many - anti-microbial protection in human milk is remarkably redundant. Many more germs pass through the mucosa of the formula fed infant and these children are not protected by human milk anti-inflammatory agents. This is one reason formula fed infants are more likely to be re-admitted to hospital in the first year of life. (About 3 times more likely). Breastfeeding does not guarantee health of either mother or baby. It just reduces the prevalence of illness. It is one of the most important and effective public health interventions available to reduce childhood morbidity in the U.S. For many years, the medical professionals based their breastfeeding advice on personal experience rather than science. This has (thankfully) given way to the practice of evidence based medicine. Based on the article in the Atlantic and now in Mother Jones, it appears that the media has taken on the role of myth purveyer regarding breastfeeding. Mother Jones would not allow such disregard for scholarship if the article covered global warming or the relative merits of vaginal birth vs scheduled cesarean sections. But somehow, breastfeeding just gets no respect.

Wha?

Sure, Ms. Dickerson, there is a cultural piece to breastfeeding that Americans aren't okay with. But to make a case "against" breastfeeding, a natural process btw, seems a bit over the top. Okay, if you've got health issues or work schedule constraints they I can certainly understand making other arrangements that do not include breastfeeding. It's somewhat surprising that there's been no discussion about how diary milk and formula got introduced in the 50s (i.e. farm lobby). Even when Ms. Rosin went on the Brian Lehrer Show this morning she got schooled by a Prof. in North Carolina (assumingly legit) on Rosin's accusations about breastfeeding "myths." There are not enough journalists with a science/medical background to make an absolutist stand against breastfeed and as a scientist it is only more irritating. Breastfeeding has scientific evidence to support things like lower infection rates and a number of benefits for the mother. None of it is life-threatening so pro-breastfeeders need to lay off a bit but being "against" breastfeeding is a bit extreme. Ms. Dickerson's article makes no argument. There's no point. I was waiting for a punchline, idea or evidence. None. I couldn't even tell it wasn't sarcasm until the end.

Wha? Back at ya, Darius

Debra J. Dickerson "Ms. Dickerson's article makes no argument. There's no point. I was waiting for a punchline, idea or evidence. None. I couldn't even tell it wasn't sarcasm until the end." That's because it wasn't "Ms. Dickerson's article." I was commenting on someone else's argument, which I found persuasive. So, you need to debunk Hanna's debunking before you can debunk me. Interesting that you think an article whose premise with which you have a serious premise seems like 'sarcasm' to you, which indicates that you think no one could disagree with you unless they were only pretending to do so. I was intrigued to hear 'breast is best' debunked and open to being dissuaded, esp given my own life and the lives ( so far of my non-BF'd kids). So far...only namecalling and posturing. Shitting in open fields was "natural". Living with death in childbirth was 'natural'. Dying pre-45 was natural. I gotta go now, cuz my kids are demanding to be fed (naturally, of course) but i could come up with other examples. "Natural" just doesn't cut it. Did you home birth, which has been 'natural' for the vast majority of human history? Again, gotta go

You are rude.

You are rude.

Agreed. The author thinks

Agreed. The author thinks she's witty and clever, but in truth, she is rude--both in the tenor and content of her article and her reply to the commenters here.

Once again, women are

tagged as: 
Once again, women are fighting each other, instead of patriarchal practices and assumptions. Can't we all just be friends, acknowledge being both a career woman and a mother is time-consuming and demanding-- and then get down to business on reforming the Family Medical Leave Act, and social presumptions in general that, " yes, the mom will still bear the burden". Don't have babies with men who aren't going to pull their end of the deal! How about demanding some press and air time on the topic of how inhospitable most businesses are to bringing babies and children into the work atmosphere. Or what about the fact that many European countries pay a woman (and some, the man as well) 90% of their salary to stay home with the child--France , I believe, even finances an at-home helper for new moms. What we tolerate in this country is insane! Many hunter- gatherer, and pastoralist-like peoples raised children collectively. Mothers in some cultures breastfeeding whatever children are under their care at the moment, while other mothers are out doing other types of work. Woman shouldn't have to sacrifice their independence and children shouldn't be forced to sub-par nutrition and bonding time. What we need is better working conditions for women and pro-woman, pro-family attitudes laterally. Social Change and dare I say, a little retro-feminism to start the engines !

Breast if best.

Brava! Well said. The US is far behind truly developed nations in human and family values. America's family values are just for show. The Family Leave Act gives UNPAID leave to family members for childbirth or illness in the family and that was passed under a Democrat. You have redirected the argument brilliantly.

Amen Sister!

Thanks for this post....this is the real issue.

I enjoyed Rosin's piece. I

I enjoyed Rosin's piece. I thought it was unfortunately titled, though, seeing as Rosin herself is a breast feeding mother and admits to enjoying it (in addition to not enjoying it--complexity, how refreshing!). It was hardly a case AGAINST anything, really. More of a modest challenge. What I took away from the article was that the science is questionable--which has always seemed obvious to me for all the reasons Rosin gives in her article--and that women really ought to lay off each other for these kinds of parenting choices. And maybe, just maybe there is a bit of a sexist backlash element to the absolute insistence on breast feeding. As an adoptive mom, for whom the inability to breast feed is just one more way I am considered less than "real" to my children by other moms on the playground, I appreciated a little common sense applied to the question of whether well-to-do mothers in the first world must breast feed to be acceptable. Rosin herself admits that the formula companies are wrong to push formula on women without money to buy it and without clean drinking water. I just wish there were more decent formula choices for those of us with no choice. I went out of my way to find organic formula for my babies before it was easy to find in stores. And my children are exceptionally healthy, and incredibly well fed, thanks very much. Given how much crap Americans feed their kids, I'd think it would cancel out the health benefits to breast feeding in a matter of months...

As an adoptive mother, you

As an adoptive mother, you certainly CAN breastfeed your children!!!! I am also an adoptive mother. I induced lactation for my child. Why should my child be dinied the benefits of breastmilk (and it does have far more benefits than formula!) just because she didn’t grow in my womb. All it takes is stimulation, and your body knows it is supposed to feed the child. I yes, I have never been pregnant before.

Oh. My. God. YOU are one of

Oh. My. God. YOU are one of the scary ones!!!! Please say you don't live near me. PLEASE?!?!?! I hope your kids don't end up intolerant like you!

A small change of tone

A small change of tone, not least because this appears to be the first response from a man. In my experience, breastfeeding advocacy reaches even further than either of these articles by Debra Dickerson or Hanna Rosin mentioned. When my wife attempted to breastfeed, the cracking of her nipples induced a life-threatening case of mastitis that returned her to hospital the same day she had been discharged with our son. Despite the drip in her arm feeding her intravenous antibiotics and her obvious pain and ill-health, nurses in her ward regularly attempted to convince her to try breastfeeding again, while the infection was at its most acute. When she finally was discharged again, it was a huge relief to me to be able to feed our baby because it meant that my exhausted wife had some chance to sleep and recuperate. That's the more dramatic side of our experience but more positively, my sharing of the nursing made my wife's re-entry to the rest of her life easier. At the same time, it gave me the huge privilege of engaging with all of the struggles and bonding that go with nursing. My fathering is much closer than it might have been otherwise. That's my case-study, however I am also by trade a researcher, so I know one case-study proves very little. Unfortunately, there is little of that sort of humility in the way much research gets reported, as highlighted in the article by Hanna Rosin. There is an awful lot of half-baked research that gets traded throughout medical and social debates. A few years ago, after I was diagnosed with a chronic condition, I checked the medical research literature to find out what the state-of-the-art was. It turns out that there was a relatively thin evidence base for either causes or treatment, yet I regularly come across absolutely confident statements about both. In the case of breastfeeding, the confounding factors in the research cited by Hanna Rosin are substantial. The fact that the conclusions kind of make sense means little - we just don't know. Guilt-tripping women into only one possible model of motherhood because it kind of makes sense seems at the very least dishonest and unfair. One final point for Shannon - if you get frightened by the chemical names of the ingredients of infant formula, make sure that you never find out what the ingredients of breast milk are called by chemists. You'll have a fit.

If something is worth doing

it's worth trying to do it properly. No women discussed in this article were forced to have children. They chose to have children. So why not try to do it the way that thousands of years of mammalian evolution intended, the way most scientists and doctors think has the most beneficial effect on the child's health? No mention of BPA?

sigh

Arthur - those horrible nurses in the hospital were encouraging your wife to continue to breastfeed because it's the best way to treat mastitis: regular and complete emptying of the breast. So sad that as a researcher you didn't figure that out sooner. Oh, and Debra? Where are your return comments to Shannon (the first one, not the adoptive mother)?

sigh

Debra J. Dickerson OK, i didn't reply to Shannon because she merely listed a bunch of links, the mere weight of which are supposed to be an argument. Hanna synthesized the data, not gave a bunch of links. She thinks her links are right, Hanna says they're not. Here's my bottom line: if breastfeeding makes all the difference, we should be able to tell in adulthood who was and who wasn't. There ought to be obvious differences in health outcomes. But there isn't, is there? If there were, i have no doubt that most of us would do or die with breastfeeding. So, if you fail to see more comments from me on this, and you will, it's not because I'm admitting defeat. I'm just moving on.

Debra Dickinsons last post...

Nothing says...I got nothing to come back with better than ...I am moving on! Too much information for you Debra that proved your and the original author incorrect?? Whether people "like" breastfeeding or not it is a proven fact that breastmilk is easier to digest, provides important antibodies and perfect nutrition for babies at every age as it is constantly changing to suit the babies age and needs. Formula is just that...a scientifically produced artificial milk that was produced to sustain life in children who had no access to breastmilk. It was and never will be anywhere near as good for babies. Do not try to suggest that the FACTS about breastmilk are incorrect just to soothe your guilt. If you choose not to breastfeed then stick to your own accurate reasons...don't try to spread lies and perpetuate misconceptions borne out of your own ignorance. Opinion is opinion and can differ but facts are not disputable.

Breastfeeding

I am a father of two children. We arranged for my wife to be a homemaker when we had children so that she could do all the things that are necessary when A WOMAN HAS A BABY. WORKING LIKE A DOG, outside of the home, was second place to our children. I did not mind working overtime so that she did not have to work, outside of the home, at all. I realize that everybody wants every damn thing but in my humble opinion most people need to grow the hell up and realize you cannot have every damn thing. I'm 55 years old and whenever I read empty headed conversations like this one it makes me think today’s women have lost their collective damn minds. Why is it that all the things that used to be so simple have become so complicated they require advise, discussion and everybody’s opinion before you can decide what should be a natural decision. Education has done more to "retard" our population than anything else. Why in the world do you think you have breast? For decoration? They are for feeding your baby, you IDIOT! You say you are educated I strongly disagree!How long did it take you to type this crap?

Not everyone is lucky enough

Not everyone is lucky enough to have this option (one parent working, the other stay-at home). It's always great to hear from the middle-aged know-it-all white guy though. "empty headed conversations like this one it makes me think today’s women have lost their collective damn minds" - misogynist much? "Education has done more to 'retard' our population than anything else" - oh no, you're homeschooling your kids! "Why in the world do you think you have breast? For decoration? They are for feeding your baby, you IDIOT!" - since I chose NOT to breed, I better run out for that double mastectomy! Don't give up hope, maybe your girl Failin' Palin will run again in 2012.

Thank you

I think the point is this--it's not your business. To encourage mothers to feel guilt over one more thing (and there are so many things, aren't there?) is shameful. We all do the best we can--how about offering support instead of condemnation? Repeat after me: It's not my business.

I put links because you

I put links because you asked for evidence, so when I made a point, I followed it up with a link you could go to to a medical journal or what not. And to the other poster, I am hardly frightened by chemical names. It was the corn syrup (now I've seen those ads, and I am still not buying it), oil, and sugar, I made a point about. I certainly wouldnt be scared of the components of breastmilk, over 200 of which can NEVER BE REPLICATED AND PUT INTO FORMULA.

The title of Rosin's article

The title of Rosin's article shouldn't have been "The Case Against Breastfeeding," it should have been "The Case Against Those Snotty Bitches at the Playground Who Judge Me For Complaining About Breastfeeding" Because that's really what it boiled down to. Rosin's article actually didn't debate the merits of breastfeeding that much; she sort of downplayed the benefits a bit, but didn't deny them. On the whole, if you can do it, it's probably the way to go (and what nature intended). I mean, heck, at the end of the article Rosin admits that she's still compelled to do it. So...WTF? Stirring up controversy amongst an audience that it is particularly susceptible to controversy-stirring. Well done. At least we know that one writer is taking home a paycheck in these hard times.

RE: Title of Rosin's article comment

Thank you! I wanted to tell Rosin she just needs to find a new playground. Or-more accurately- she is probably exaggerating the looks based on her distaste for the "tight jeans and oversized sunglasses". I definitely don't imagine it when people try to make me LEAVE to breastfeed telling me I am offensive to the children in the room. Or when they make me go feed my baby in the bathroom! Gross! No one does that to formula babies. It makes me so sad to see the venom with which Rosin and Dickerson write. Breastfeeding is still very, very uncommon percentage-wise. We are still the minority. Why attack each other? Why attack us as a whole? I would never attack anyone for using formula. Its your baby! MOthers are so vulnerable and I feel like this is just misplaced aggression. Breastfeeding has absolutely liberated my time and resources (and makes my hart swell). Why assume you know so much about my life you can say what's right for me? Its just so sad. So, so sad to see the true meaning of feminism get trounced once again by people who THINK they are supporting it.

BREASTFEENG

The point was not whether it was any particular person's business. Rather it was does anyone have an opinion and would they like to share it? People are so easily offended and quick to tell others it's not their business simply because they disagree with them. Everything in the world is my business. I live here and I have an opinion about most things and no one has the right to tell me what is or isnt my business. You power lies in ignoring me not dictating to me what I am allowed to speak on. Today's woman is so damn insecure and unstable that she cannot make simple decisions without the advice of Oprah and every girlfriend she's ever had since high school. If you don't want to breastfeed don't. My point was: what do you think you have breast for in the first place, if not for breastfeeding?. It amazes me that animals know the answer to this question but "educated" human beings are constantly confused with something so trivial! Grow up.

AAP Supports Breastfeeding

It does not surprise me that a professional journalist would choose to cast aspersions on breastfeeding itself and on nursing mothers in order to stoke the so-called Mommy Wars and gain publicity. In fact, the American Academy of Pediatricians has issued a policy statement on breastfeeding and (I would assume after a thorough review of the literature, perhaps even more thorough than Ms. Rosin's) concluded that the evidence is in favor of a medical recommendation to breastfeed at least one full year of a baby's life. http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/pediatrics;115... The fact that the AAP has concluded this is all the more notable given the strong influence the formula industry otherwise exerts on that body. In the end, breastfeeding is a personal choice. If a mother doesn't want to breastfeed, she shouldn't breastfeed. I find it interesting that Rosin's approach is to breastfeed her own babies, but to discourage other mothers from doing so on "scientific" grounds. In the end many of the benefits of breastfeeding are not scientifically quantifiable. It is the human biological norm for infant feeding, and it makes sense that it has evolved to promote optimal survival and development of human infants, as well as to extend significant health benefits to mothers. Still, not every mother is in a position to make optimal choices all the time. I for one sometimes feed my children from McDonald's. I realize that home-cooked whole grains and organic veggies are far better for my children's health, but due to the same pressures that make some mothers are unable to breastfeed, I sometimes find it difficult to cook whole foods at home 100% of the time. But just because I sometimes do this doesn't make me feel entitled to read article after article in the mainstream press telling me that fast food is "just as good" as whole foods at home. In the end, I do the best I can as much as I can. I don't feel oppressed by the health food lobby - I feel appreciative to be able to have the information I need to give informed consent to my child-feeding decisions, and the encouragement to do better if I can. If I can't, I can't. Mothers are not fragile little children with delicate self-esteem. They are grown-up women who are capable of informing themselves of the best practices, and choosing among them with the best interests of their families in mind. The bottom line is that breastfeeding is the human biological norm in infant feeding and it carries lots of advantages, health and otherwise, for babies and their mothers. It is environmentally-friendly and also carries benefits for society more broadly. No one should be discouraged from breastfeeding.

I am so glad I live in the unenlighted South

tagged as: 
"The title of Rosin's article shouldn't have been "The Case Against Breastfeeding," it should have been "The Case Against Those Snotty Bitches at the Playground Who Judge Me For Complaining About Breastfeeding"" I always read these commentaries and articles about women being judged for not breastfeeding or not doing some granola mothering practice with absolute puzzlement. As a full-time working mother of three who has never used a disposable diaper, bought a can of formula, or put a baby in a crib, i.e. I am a one of those granola-types, I have no idea what these mothers are complaining about. I have never, ever looked askance at someone using formula or any of the other things these snotty playground bitches supposedly do. Nor have I ever heard anyone in my peer group or in my office that contains at least 5 mothers of infants, criticize others for their child-rearing, infant nutrition choices. Maybe it is because I live in the South where people mind there own business. Or maybe it is because we are all too busy working and raising our children to comment on other people's lives. I just don't understand how this article, or any of these supposed snobberies help the causes of feminism. I certainly wouldn't call that article (yes, I read it) "deliciously subversive." How about "perpetuating the enmity between mothers who makes disparate choices and thereby infusing the culture with more hatred and guilt and stalling the progress of advancement of women in the workplace and home."

Breastfeeding and child rearing

Why does breastfeeding have to be such an issue here in the USA? I was born and raised in Europe so I see the difference in the culture and it's mind boggling how a newborn feeding can be made such a complicated issue here. Women have breastfed children for centuries without any problems. Yet today a modern woman can't breastfeed without getting medical problems or some other problems. Also why is it that European counterparts can manage breastfeeding and working etc just fine and here it's a problem? Could it be due to lack of support and education? Most doctors and nurses don't know anything or very little about breastfeeding. They are so quick to recommend formula over breastfeeding. Formula industry is huge here in the USA and they are so powerful that many new parents, doctors and nurses are brainwashed to think formula is better than breastfeeding. Breastfeeding is not considered the right choice for a woman who cares about her "status". Since when should status matter when you are creating another human being and it's your responsibility to give that human being the best nutrition possible???? I've given birth twice here in the USA and have breastfed my two children total of 5 years out of the 11 years I've lived here. I was a corporate career person when our first child was born so I know what it's like to pump at work and juggle working and breastfeeding as well as parenting in general. I had to pump in the car because I had no other choice. I made it work because I was so committed to my baby that nothing was going to stop me from nursing. I remember when the nurses at the hospital were telling me that I was breastfeeding wrong and trying to discourage me from nursing. That made me want to try harder and find the support and answers myself. Thank God I did and both our children, myself and my husband reaped the benefits from my dedication and my determination. Without my husbands dedication and determination it would have been 100 times worse for me and he helped me fight the battles with hospitals, doctors and nurses and even family and friends. I also don't get this whole idea that your husband is suppose to help you with feeding the newborn. How is he suppose to do that when nature made it where a woman is the one with breasts, not the man? I think it's ridiculous to expect and/or demand your husband to participate in the feedings in the early months of life when breastmilk is the main nutrition. I also don't get the idea of grandparents wanting to share the feedings and have that special bonding with the baby. Call me selfish but I had my children so I could take care of them 100% from the minute they were born. I wasn't willing to hand off my baby to someone so that they could give him a bottle when I take a "break". There are no breaks in life when you are a mother of a newborn and if people don't realize that then maybe they shouldn't have children until they are ready for that life time commitment 100% of their time. Of course you share the responsibility of parenting with your spouse who can then be there for the non-feeding situations such as diaper changes and holding. It just seems to me that women today want to have it all. They want to have the baby because babies are so cute or because they think they ought to but they also want to be "free" to do whatever they want as long as it suits them regardless of what the baby or the child needs. Then women write articles and books to try to justify their decisions to do things and act selfishly the way they do. I think the best example of this is the question you get about 100 times after your baby is born which is "Is you baby sleeping through the night yet?". My answer to the question every time was the same. "No and I'm so glad he is not because I love those night time cuddles and I won't have that when he is a teenager." I didn't have a baby so that I could train him to sleep through the night for my own convenience especially since developmentally babies need night time parenting as much as day time parenting including feedings and diaper changes in the middle of the night no matter how inconvenient that is for you as a mother. I agree with other posters that the whole culture and support system needs to be changed here in the USA to be more pro mother especially when it comes to working mothers. They need to be given more time off after a baby is born with better benefits than are offered today. The current system makes child rearing including breastfeeding extremely difficult if you are working mother and requires more work and heart ache than the European mothers have to go through. That needs to change ASAP so that children could have a better start in the lives which ultimately is what matters. It's the child who suffers when parents and/or societies are set up to act selflessly with little or no regard to the children.

Learning about breastfeeding

tagged as: 
Hi. I became a mom/baby nurse about 3 years ago, after working in labor and delivery for approximately 25 years. I became a lacation consultant about 2 years ago. I remember starting the job as a lacation educator, looking at the posters in the office of women smiling like Mona Lisa breastfeeding their baby, and thinking "Wow, I'm going to go out there and help women to do THAT. How lucky I am." After about 3 months of doing that, I realized those posters were propaganda. Looking more closely you discover those babies weigh about 15 lbs. and are about 3 months old. It is rare for a woman to look blissed out feeding a newborn. It does happen, but don't count on it the first 2 weeks of life. Babies are a incredible miracle that need lots of love and support. As one of my friends shared with me when I was thinking perhaps of having a baby in my 40's, with my husband to be, "Babies really aren't romantic". Working nights and studing lactation I learned Babies DO want to breastfeed more at night. They DO want to eat frequently. The reasons have to do with physiology and how we have evolved over thousands of years. As breastfeeding mom's are hormones are higher at night for milk production, and when the newborn smells this, they want to eat. Electricity came about a hundred years ago, for the wealthy. Most of us went to bed when it was dark and didn't get up till almost light. NIGHT time was the time when the woman could just rest/lay down and feed her newborn, thus we have evoloved where newborns want to feed more at night. The more frequently they feed, the soonier the milk comes in. It is recommended to try and power nap as much after feedings and in the day for the first 6 weeks of life so the woman's milk supply will be more bountiful, and the woman more rested. I've also discovered on this journey of lactation that probably 2/3 of the woman in the world do "wet nursing". That is when someone else breastfeeds the baby for you. In many other cultrues the woman is catered to, feed, helped for the first 4 weeks after giving birth. Often, a family member or dear friend will breastfeed the newborn till the mother is strong enough or both baby and mother get the "dance of life" down. I now often compare breastfeeding to Dancing with the Stars. Kind of clumsy in the beginning but both mom and baby get better (usually) in time and with doing it. There was a excavation in England I had heard about last year. Betty the blacksmith's wife, contracted out her services as a wet nurse to other ladies in the village and earned money for her services. Yes, wet nursing wasn't just for the rich and powerful. Tip of the day: It is called BREASTFEEDING, it is not nipple feeding or aerola feeding, if you are having pain with the latch, it is often because the baby doesn't have enough BREAST in his or her mouth. One last thought, if you do decide to have a baby, LOVE AND SANITY are the most important factors. I've been told Canada, back in the 1970's, put in codes that new office buildings had to have day care centers and lactation rooms. Now that sounds family friendly.

Don't know where you are

Don't know where you are from (Scadinavia maybe?), but in France, women breastfeed much less than they do here.

Biologically appropriate

The basic fact, and one certainly shouldn't need scientific research to understand this, is that human breastmilk is the biologically appropriate nutrition for children. Artificial infant milk, made from the milk of a cow or from soy proteins, is not. It only makes sense that our bodies will thrive the most on the nutrition that is most biologically appropriate for them, especially during those first three years when our brains and bodies undergo more development than at any other time in our lives. Yes, the vast majority of children will do fine, many will even thrive on artificial infant formula, but this is not a compelling argument for it being the most biologically appropriate nutrition for them. Adults may be able to get by on Ensure (also known as adult formula), but no one would ever suggest that someone who is able to eat a balanced diet ought to give it up to consume only Ensure. This is a simillar situation to putting babies on artificial infant milk. As parents, we are constantly weighing pros and cons, risks and benefits. When choosing formula over breastmilk, parents should be apprised of what the possible risks will be, they should make a truly informed decision (which is what Rosin believes she did when she decided to combination feed her youngest child). But no one should go into the choice believing that artificial infant milk is a biologically equivalent to breastmilk. Rosin seems to have a big problem with the judgmental mommies... well, those mommies will judge you for something else if it isn't for the breastfeeding choice... that's what judgmental people do. And to say that we who choose breastfeeding will never work in any meaningful way, as Rosin argues, is judgmental as well. She is saying that the work I have done nourishing my children is not meaningful and not valuable. She says that breastfeeding is only free if a woman's time is worth nothing... but what of the worth of our children? My time could be spent in no more precious a way than to nurture and nourish my children. Rosin also completely fails to look at the economic and environmental detriment that artificial infant milk causes. Our government spends billions of dollars every year in giving formula to WIC moms, and that "one extra day" of sickness that Rosin refers to so casually costs billions of dollars in healthcare costs in the form of more doctor visits (many of which will be billed through Medicare) and increased health insurance premiums to cover all those extra sick days. Women who formula feed also miss more days of work than their breastfeeding counterparts. The production of dairy has an enormous impact on our environment, as do the packaging, shipping, and disposal of formula and bottles. Of course, the above comments really deal with Rosin's work, which was thought-provoking and well-composed, even if I don't agree with it. Dickerson's piece is just downright unnecessary. It adds nothing of interest to Rosin's work, it contributes nothing new to the argument, and if I were Dickerson's child, I would be sad to see myself refered to as "a little bugger" by my mother in a public forum. It should be a comment to Rosin's article on the Atlantic website, not a piece of its own. It seems like the real goal of the piece is to give her friend a public pat on the back for expressing an opinion unpopular among her peers.

Equality through formula feeding? Give me a break!!!

tagged as: 
The implication that somehow feeding an infant formula becomes some sort of equalizer is absurd. How many bottle-feeding & breastfeeding mothers do I know that share the complaint that all housework and child-rearing responsibilities fall on their shoulders? Um, every single one I know!!! It amazes me how we humans think we can outsmart and circumvent nature...formula is a last resort, an alternative. Breastmilk is the real deal. And trying to "debunk" the facts on something that we're ever learning more about (stemcells in breastmilk, decreased risks of breast cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes in children) is like trying to run uphill in an avalanche. And Hanna's article? Sounds like a bit of victim culture rather than feminism to me. I see that much of this is also written from the cultural perspective of an American who only gets 6-12 weeks of paid leave and in a society where it's every man for himself (with women scrambling for themselves and their families as well). Mothers, fathers and families are not valued...they throw a wrench in to our obsession with go go go and profit, and to our detriment. My value in life is not determined as meaningful by how much my life appears and works like a man's. I am a woman, I mother my children and breastfeed them as every mammal does. It's something only I can do, it is powerful, it is meaningful.

While Rosin's article didn't

While Rosin's article didn't bother me one iota, but this one is so full of drivel, I could barely get through it. 1. Rosin never footnoted her sources, we're given to take her word for it. She summed up what she personally saw. People can and do skew the evidence to suit their own agendas. Having personally seen and read studies on Breast Vs Bottle, I know very well what they say. I also know one very important fact that Rosin neglects to mention or is unaware of; the majority of studies on this subject are funded by Mead Johnson and Nestle, the major marketers of infant formula. There's a vested interest by both companies to play down the vast difference between the two nutrition sources. From a scientific perspective, this is reason enough to question ambiguous outcomes. From a personal perspective, I don't need the studies, I have a child who nearly died as a result of health issues caused by formula. I don't need a study to show me how breastmilk never harmed him, but formula did. 2. Rosin is absolutely correct in her assertion that we should not judge mothers for using formula. There is absolutely no way to know why a woman we see on the street uses formula. If she simply opted for it out of preference, that's her business, no one else's. What does matter is the effort to increase public education on the topic. There are legitimate reasons to use formula, and it exists for a very good reason -- to feed infants when breastmilk isn't available. It's an ADEQUATE substitute. Not nearly perfect, but it does the job. Sometimes, we have to settle for adequate, even when we want perfection. 3. Is breastfeeding anti-feminist? Hardly. One doesn't have to shrug off their biological identity to suit a feminist ideal. Just as my husband couldn't carry our children within his body, he hasn't the ability to feed them from his own body. That's not anti-feminist, it's life. Biology. Evolution made us mammal, there's no getting around that simple fact. What's next, pregnancy is anti-feminist? After all, the same arguments can be made that were made about breastfeeding. Pregnancy is exceptionally difficult for many, for me it entailed many months of bedrest. It's a major time consumer, and can delay career goals. I was far more impeded in my real life by pregnancy than I ever was by breastfeeding my children. I was one of the lucky ones who breastfeeding came to easy, but pregnancy sucked in more ways than I can count. It was pregnancy and NOT breastfeeding that derailed my career path for several years. In sum, Ms. Dickerson's piece is nothing more than a self indulgent rabble rousing tantrum. Ms. Rosin's piece deserves some thought. She's got a few good points, even if I don't agree with her overall premise.

Trying to validate your

Trying to validate your choices by saying the science is bogus? sure, whatever you say...... I have a feeling all the articulate, well informed responses will fall on deaf ears with this author.

Breastfeeding and the mommy wars

tagged as: 
Stop the mommy wars! As a physician, mother, and public health advocate, let's talk about the bigger issue: It can be very challenging to breastfeed in the United States. Breastfeeding is the medical recommendation yet in the US (for good reasons), yet we are set up to fail. The US is the only country in the developed world without paid maternity leave. Less than 3% of our hospitals implement all the evidence-based practices around breastfeeding of the WHO Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative. Women have to go out of their way to get prenatal education on breastfeeding. Doctors and nurses don't have to learn much, if anything, about breastfeeding management in med school or residency, and to top it all off: health professionals and hospitals are constantly marketing formula to new moms by giving out commercial diaper bags and formula samples and coupons. Breastfeeding is not just about babies-- it's about maternal health, too. Early weaning is linked to higher rates of breast cancer, ovarian cancer, coronary artery disease, and type 2 diabetes. The longer you breastfeed, the lower your risk of 4 of these killers. The CDC recently found that 40% of women do not even meet their own breastfeeding goals, and even fewer meet the universal medical recommendation to breastfeed exclusively for 6 months with continued breastfeeding for the first 1-2 years of life. These recommendations are for all women and babies, including the waitresses and bus drivers whom Rosin discusses. It's appalling that the editors of the Atlantic nor the editors of Mother Jones did not do any fact-checking. Rosin’s selective citing of the scientific literature suffers from a serious lack of fact-checking from the Atlantic editorial staff. The most recent comprehensive, objective analysis on the risks of not breastfeeding comes from the Agency of Healthcare Quality Research (2007). This report conclusively links early weaning to increased risks of maternal and childhood disease, including childhood obesity. With an epidemic of obesity in this country threatening our collective health and our economy, now is not the time to make the case against an effective preventative measure. The scientists of all major medical organizations recommend breastfeeding based on their organizations’ expert review of the literature. These folks are the MD’s and the PhD’s who know their way around meta-analyses, Odds Ratios, Hazard Ratios, p-values, and Relative Risks, and who can tell us a lot more than one “paranoid sleep-deprived mother of a newborn," as Rosin calls herself. Instead of fighting each other, let's come together and fight for real change.

Formula is Fine

I suspect the pressure to breastfeed is related to the helicopter parent phenomenon. Breast may be best but we all know that formula is just fine.

Formula is fine?

I'll set my sights a bit higher than "fine" when it comes to feeding my child. And with what we know about tainted formula killing babies, premature infants dying due to bacteria in powdered formula (in North America no less) formula is anything but fine. It is an alternative, it is not the best choice. It is a necessity in some cases, but still not tailormade for a human baby as breastmilk is. There are no judgments in acknowledging that fact.

Mizmoon--formula is just fine?

Things I've noticed over the past half-century, and other people conveniently haven't: Increase in children with peanut allergy--This was EXTREMELY rare back then, very common now. Drop in sperm counts in the majority of countries. Increase in many forms of cancer. Back in the late to mid thirties, we were told that soy products were the food of the future, that soy "meat" could be made to taste as good as, or maybe even better than, the real thing. But that didn't really pan out. Then the soy producers shifted to making baby formulas, and telling us that this GARBAGE would lead to healthier, happier babies. So almost everyone jumped on the wagon, and a billion dollar industry was born. The bad thing about billion dollar industries is that they turn into multibillion dollar industries, and then they become almost invincible with their rich shareholders and their teams of lawyers. Many people in positions to attempt to point out that the isoflavinoids in soy proteins are classified as estrogen-like compounds, act similarly to the hormone estogen, and hormones are not something you want to shove down anyone's throat, much less an infant's, unless ABSOLUTELY necessary, are understandably hesitant to do so. Of course, now that I've said this, I should probably start watching my back (N0, I'm not paranoid, but they'd like you to believe that)! Actually, that last part there is a joke, but the rest is NOT!! Open your eyes people, and read the literature!

The Case Against Blaming Mothers

The "science" in Rosin's article is weak. Shannon (above) knocked it out of the park with that comment. Once all of the reactive furor settles (nice PR work was done on that article by the way-- The Atlantic is no doubt pleased) the conversation worth having is why the hell our culture is so hellbent on perfection in parenting. Here's my reply-- http://tinyurl.com/ddtmvu. It's long. Breastfeeding and pumping do not preclude meaningful work... if you're into it. If you're ambivalent and feel resentful about it, then you do want you want/need to do. Blaming others for guilt, railing on public health efforts that make sure that women have support in breastfeeding and projecting guilt onto other people is one way to deal with the ambivalence. Many of us feel profound frustration with gender roles, cultural expectations and loss of freedom from becoming responsible for children (that goes for both parents if there are two). Most of us just don't have The Atlantic for a pulpit.

lol yes formula is fine

Your "when it comes to feeding my child" comment just proves my helicopter parent point. I dare you to take any two adults and point out who was breast fed and who wasn't. You can't cause it's a pointless thing that only matters to helicopter parent types. And when did you hear of tainted formula harming anyone in the US? Tainted formula doesn't make all formula bad any more than some beef with ecoli makes all beef bad.

Analysis by assertion

DJD: "Here's my bottom line: if breastfeeding makes all the difference, we should be able to tell in adulthood who was and who wasn't. There ought to be obvious differences in health outcomes." Might be worth acquainting yourself with the notions "epidemiology" and "statistics" and thinking for a couple minutes about whether you'd like to make some difference, if not all -- before broadcasting blanket recommendations to the entire world. As for "tell in adulthood", the American Academy of Pediatrics (2005 - link cited above) observes that "In addition, postneonatal infant mortality rates in the United States are reduced by 21% in breastfed infants." What's next on the list of uninformed, delightfully contrarian advice -- vaccination?

Post new comment

Alternately, you may login to or register an account
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback

We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.

Photo Essays

The chaos and humanity of war.
The craftspeople and musicians of Appalachia.
A selection of '70s ads depicting African-Americans.
As climate change melts the permafrost, native villages slip into the sea, taking a way of life with them.