An analysis of Rosin's The Case against Breast-feeding

The Case against Breast-Feeding

By

Hanna Rosin

The Atlantic monthly, April 2009

I recently heard Hanna Rosin on NPR talking about her latest article, in the July/August 2010 issue of The Atlantic. It is titled “The End of Men” and from hearing her speak it is obvious that she is opinionated and likes to provoke. Having said that, I actually enjoyed listening to her and found her smart and amusing. However, in this article, The Case against Breast-Feeding, she sounds mostly angry and it seems as if she is trying to alleviate her guilt. She attempts to claim that breast-feeding is not necessary, and yet she doesn’t even seem to convince herself. The data she uses is very one-sided and she fails to mention the important statement made by the American Academy of Pediatrics in Pediatrics No. 115 Vol.2 February 2005 in which the benefits of breast-feeding, for both mother and child, are summarized. This statement also affirms that “considerable advances have occurred in recent years in the scientific knowledge of the benefits of breast-feeding.” (Pediatrics 2005)

I therefore feel strongly that Rosin’s sources are not up-to-date, and because she is offering a science-based argument she should have used more recent data. Instead she quotes an issue of Pediatrics from 1984 and then informs us that “Twenty-five years later, the picture hasn’t changed all that much.”

It is clear from the article that Rosin’s real issue lies with the fact that men cannot breast-feed. She graphically makes her point in the following sentence: “It was not the vacuum that was keeping me and my 21^st-century sisters down, but another sucking sound.” This is her opinion and not an effective argument. I am not saying that it is not hard for women to triumph in the work-place when they are also responsible for breast-feeding, but she might as well argue that being pregnant and giving birth are inconvenient and that women shouldn’t have to do it if men can’t. There is no getting away from the fact that men and women are different. We should celebrate that fact.

The article is well-organized and well-written but the ending is weak. The last paragraph starts: “My best guess is something I can’t quite articulate.” Her best guess? Which she can’t articulate? She is trying to present a scientific argument so guesswork doesn’t come into it, and the whole point of writing is to articulate. So her conclusion is sorely lacking. After all her arguments against breast-feeding, she also, in the last paragraph, admits to still nursing her baby and says: “I also know that this is probably my last chance to feel warm baby skin up against mine, and one day I will miss it.” Enough said.

The article is logically argued some of the time, but at other times Rosin’s arguments fall short and are too filled with her own baggage. She makes a good point in saying that breast-feeding has become an upper middle class ideal, which in itself is interesting, considering that it used to be something only the poor did. In fact centuries ago rich mothers would have wet-nurses instead of formula to do the “dirty deed” of feeding their own children. When Rosin mentions some pro-breast-feeding commercials aired by the Department of Health and Human Services in 2004, she says they are “dripping with sexual innuendo” and I find it hard to believe that this was the DHHS’ intention. I think it much more likely that Rosin herself projects the sexual innuendo onto them. Breasts have become completely sexualized in our society, which is a huge part of the problem that people have with breast-feeding today. We have such a fear of sex that we believe that one body part cannot possibly serve for sexual pleasure and for the good of our children. Without going into too much detail, it might help us to remember that other sexual organs are involved in both sexual intercourse and children (in particular, giving birth). So far I have not heard any objections to this.

In her article Rosin makes it plain that the biggest challenge lies with working mothers. She obviously finds it grossly unfair that working mothers should suffer because they have to breast-feed. And it is unfair. While women are taking care of the children, men get promotions. But this is not a problem with breast-feeding; it is a problem of how we as a society decide to deal with motherhood. Mothers and fathers offer different roles in their children’s up-bringing, and both should be supported, but to a large extent are not. And that is the fundamental dilemma that Rosin is grappling with.

The article did not change my mind about my strong belief that breast-feeding is very beneficial to both mother and child, and if a mother has enough support from her family as well as society, she will find it a rewarding, enriching experience. Undoubtedly it is better for the baby too – our bodies were made for this.