Not to get all parochial and tribalist, but ... Back to back diavlogs featuring a participant from the University of Rochacha! (*whirls hand above head*)

Titstorm, where u at?.....oh, wait, that's me....

Quoting Thanks, dad!: Titstorm, where u at?.....oh, wait, that's me....

Hah! Maybe it's time to change to Thanks, mom!

i seriously just might do that. i'm already bored of this one

finally a topic i can really sink my teeth into.

I got two things out of this DV: 1) Ruth is one of the toughest ladies ever!! major respect for the work she has done in her life. 2) Hanna wants some back-up for her whining about a pretty trivial problem (peer pressure) and Ruth thinks maybe there are bigger fish to fry. At one point, hanna wants to get ruth to say something like "the battle is over, breastfeeding is accepted, now we need to destigmatize women that don't breastfeed". It was a nice time for Ruth to point out that we are still fighting legislative battles just to ensure that women do have the right to breastfeed in public without being persecuted.

I can see the whiny part, but I think it's worth discussing the what is appears to be a correlation between earnings, and extended bfing. I also think it's worth discussing more about how changes in child bearing (fewer more spaced out pg's) leading to big gaps in generations, and in our extended family living patterns that leads to a lack of a "support network" for bfing which was Ruth's point. I don't think anyone was or would argue with the inappropriateness of selling formula concentrate in places that lack potable water, so that seems pretty boring, but certainly worth mentioning to keep the context.

I still can't believe that Ms. Rosin is objecting to the recommendation for 6 mos and saying that the studies that have said that there are health benefits that come from breastfeeding are unfounded. I still can't believe she wrote that article! She is such a loser.

Wow -- just read Rosin's piece in the Atlantic. Horrible, truly horrible. The "me" generation lives... It bears repeating some of the responses to the article (for example, here and here): 1. Breasts are for breastfeeding. That's reality. That's evolution. That's a part of being human. Men don't have breasts. Deal with it. 2. Unless you have a medical condition, you should breastfeed. Children are healthier when breastfed. Sure, they can survive on formula, but they could probably survive eating McDonald's every day too. Saying that there is scientific controversy about this topic is like a creationist saying there is scientific controversy about evolution. 3. Breastfeeding is incredibly difficult and time-consuming. The best things in life usually are. 4. The ultimate question is which of the following is the most important in the larger scheme of things: your child's health, making a simplistic "feminist" point, or your career? I hope the choice is clear. If your kids interfere with your precious job making widgets or filling out spreadsheets, why have children in the first place? The acceptance of childlessness is the cultural change that needs to take place. That, plus a paradigm shift in corporate/government policy toward a greater valuation of motherhood (much more paid maternity leave, etc)... Rosin really

It is striking that despite Hannah Rosin’s privileged position in life, her world view is narrow. It is also obvious that she has had not sufficient training in scientific research. She read the AHRQ analysis, but didn’t understand what she had read; didn’t understand the differences among quantitative research methods and the meaning of findings using descriptive or experimental designs. Ruth Lawrence was kind and patient with her. I loved her message to Hannah- that she continue to use her “power of the pen.” It seemed that a window opened so Hannah need not go down as anti-breastfeeding, but would have opportunity to expand the discussion on working, mothering and breastfeeding.

Quoting knatoli: It is striking that despite Hannah Rosin’s privileged position in life, her world view is narrow.

Based on what? That she wrote an article about a particular topic (the views of breastfeeding among the types of people she knows and some of her concerns about some of the rhetoric and guilting tactics) different from the particular topic you would have preferred her to focus on? I generally had no problem with Ruth Lawrence and don't think what she was saying and what Hanna (which is how she spells her name, btw) was saying were particularly contradictory. But it's not a good argument for Lawrence to start talking about the non-analogous problems with formula in the third world as evidence re people's choices in the US. That did seem consistent with some of the shaming and misleading claims that Hanna was reacting to in her original essay. As far as Hanna "going down" as anti-breastfeeding, please. She's obviously not.

Thank you Stephanie for your thoughtful commentary. The readership of the Atlantic Magazine is not an island. The article sent ripples out into the world. Doubtless Hanna has heard from countless women who disagreed with her conclusions. Many professional women breastfeed, and most have more contact with a broader swathe of society. Hanna works in a rarefied environment, unlike educators or health care providers who daily interact with people from all walks of life – face to face, up close and personal. Until I heard the interview, it never occurred to me that an educated person could be so isolated from the experience of ordinary people. Nor did I appreciate the cognitive dissonance regarding the supposed acceptance of breastfeeding as the norm for this privileged group with the need to legislate the right to breastfeed for most women. So, my own world view has grown. To Hanna’s credit, she does say that she realizes that her perspective is limited. (08:55, 12:14-55, 30:06) As a passionate old-school feminist, I believe women are free to choose motherhood or not, to continue a pregnancy or not, to breastfeed or not. Each choice bears reward and consequence, but it is a personal

Quoting knatoli: The article sent ripples out into the world. Doubtless Hanna has heard from countless women who disagreed with her conclusions.

She has said that she's heard lots from women grateful for her article and, of course, some from women upset by it. IMO, there's no rational reason to have been upset by it (since it was not remotely anti-bfing) unless you are a pro bf activist of the type that wants to shame and distort due to your fear that otherwise women won't do what you consider the right thing.

Quoting knatoli: Many professional women breastfeed, and most have more contact with a broader swathe of society.

IME, *most* professional women either bf, bf at first, or tried to bf. Within the professional women demographic, bfing is the cultural norm. Hanna herself is in the demographic, it's what she was writing about, and she, of course, bf'd. What I find obnoxious about responses like yours is that you seem to assume that if a woman acknowledges that there are negatives to the socially-imposed pressure, some negatives for some women to bfing, and basically tries to have an honest conversation, she is accused of being anti-bfing, which is ridiculous. Why are

What I find obnoxious about responses like yours is that you seem to assume that if a woman acknowledges that there are negatives to the socially-imposed pressure, some negatives for some women to bfing, and basically tries to have an honest conversation, she is accused of being anti-bfing, which is ridiculous. Why are you so scared of an open conversation?

This has ceased to be a mutually respectful debate and I withdraw from further discourse.