Breastfeeding, Options, and a Tale of Two Michelles

In the wake of a study that suggests formula-fed children are six times as likely to be obese by age three, Michelle Obama has taken up breastfeeding promotion as a main objective of her Let's Move campaign.  According to her spokesperson, the first lady is focusing not on dictating people's infant feeding choices, but instead "trying to make it easier for those who choose to [breastfeed]."

Lower-income, predominately African American communities have the lowest breastfeeding initiation rates, rates that drop even lower to around 20% at six months of age.  Children in these communities are also at the highest risk for infant death and, of course, childhood obesity, both of which breastfeeding is known to curb.  Additionally, women who breastfeed are less likely to develop breast cancer and diabetes later in life, health problems that are both prevalent among African American women.

Surveys have all but confirmed that the abysmal breastfeeding rates in lower-income communities (regardless of race) are mostly due to socioeconomic barriers: women who cannot afford (or locate) a professional lactation consultant are likely to give up breastfeeding when problems arise.  While these problems (sore nipples, engorgement, etc) can make breastfeeding unbearably painful, the assistance of a lactation specialist or consultant often provides a quick and easy fix. Additionally, lower-income women are more likely to have to return to work sooner, and, without appropriate equipment, support, and know-how, many of these women will have to give up breastfeeding all together.  Such a factor played a role in the IRS' recent decision to allow the deduction of breastpumps and other supplies as medical expenses.

Cue the circus of rich folks who are "tired of the government telling them what to do with their bodies."  Take Tea Party favorite Michelle Bachmann, whose reaction to increased accessibility of breastfeeding is probably nothing more than a political stunt: on the Laura Ingraham show, Bachmann railed against the supposed "nanny state" that we are creating by helping women make more autonomous infant feeding decisions.  Bachmann bragged, "I've given birth to five babies and I breast-fed every single one," continuing with, "To think that government has to go out and buy my breast pump ... That's the new definition of a nanny state."

Staying home and breastfeeding five babies is all well and good for Michelle Bachmann, but in communities where women are more likely to have to return to work soon after baby is born, laying down $200+ for a decent breast pump is out of the question.  Never mind that many of the jobs these women hold aren't exactly friendly to a mother's pumping needs (a cause which Mrs. Obama has also taken up), even a working mother with an office job is infinitely more able to keep her supply up while at work.  This is simply not the case in retail stores, schools, factories, and service industries.

Of course, to the hard-line conservative, women who cannot breastfeed their children should think twice about that before "choosing" to get pregnant in the first place.  Talk about government control of women's bodies: these are the same people who are currently working to remove Title X funding from family planning clinics, cut funding from supplemental nutrition programs, strike programs that provide prenatal and pediatric care, and of course, limit the accessibility of abortion.  It's almost like they, not the first lady, are the ones dictating what women are and are not able to do with their bodies, from the prevention of pregnancy to their infant feeding choices.

Michelle Obama's call to promote breastfeeding is hardly a question of government intervention.  Women know that breastfeeding is best, and most women want to be able to provide breastmilk for their children.  The problem is not that the government is intervening, but that for many women, continuing to breastfeed is out of the question.  Breaking down barriers, providing education and support, and promoting the healithiest of healthy practices is not just best for our newest citizens, it is in fact a practice that could save billions in medical costs per year.  You'd think these purported "fiscal conservatives" would be down with that... but then, who ever said they were champions of sound logic?

Why Not Celebrating Valentine's Day is Awesome

I'm not going to be one of those self-righteous people who runs around on V-day talking about how "my relationship is so good we don't need a special day to enjoy it," etc etc etc.  While that is most certainly one of the major reasons we don't "do" Valentine's (other than its modern roots as nothing but a way for card companies to make money), I'm assuming most couples who celebrate the day don't really need one, either.  Whether or not a couple is into Valentine's Day shenanigans is really not a valid barometer to measure the state of one's relationship.  But I don't celebrate it, and it works for me.  Here's some good reasons to forgo the occasion all together!

• Ever tried to get a table at a nice restaurant on Valentine's?  I actually have not, but I am well aware of how difficult it is without making a reservation far in advance.  Even if you have a reservation or can get a table, your dining experience is going to be shaped by crowds, grumpy waitstaff, and a rushed meal.  I don't know a single food server who doesn't work every single Valentine's, and from what they've told me, people are lousy tippers on this night in particular.  Probably because they've already spent all their cash on some sort of Kay Jewelers fiasco.  
• Speaking of Kay Jewelers... I love you!  Here's something shiny!  More on the diamond industry in a moment, but what is up with this practice?  I'll let Family Guy elaborate on this tradition.
• Did I mention our modern-day understanding of Valentine's Day is little more than a capitalist venture into the marketing of people's deepest and most personal emotions?  There's that.  But there's more.  Far from just greeting cards, Valentine's Day is a huge money maker for some of the most corrupt, most abusive industries on the planet: chocolate, flowers, and diamonds.  It's just nice to completely avoid supporting these industries on their biggest day of the year.  
• Oye, the heterosexism!  That's right, I said it.  Valentine's Day may be celebrated by couples from a range of relationship styles, gender identities, values, marital statuses, etc, but family diversity is rarely reflected in the cookie-cutter Valentine's products we're offered.  This may just be a merchandising standard, you know, cater to the lowest common denominator, but it gives a totally different message: love is uniform, and deviations from its norm are not acceptable.

Well that's that... I could go on for days (who, me?), but it's Valentine's Day, which means I've got to get busy on my feminist theory reading for Wednesday!