Actually, women cannot be "made" to feel guilty, despite what Traister claims.

If a sign saying "Babies were born to breastfeed" leads a woman to feel guilty, it is because she has allowed herself to be influenced by the sign.

In this society, women, men, boys, girls are bombarded with ads trying to convert them to someone else's point of view. If you don't develop a certain cynicism toward such ads, then if you are an adult, you are probably dysfunctional in this society.

As to the fact of the matter, questioned in the headline over Traister's typical microtantrum as "Baby we were born to breastfeed?" (it's not my grammar), well, Yes! If you happen to believe in Darwinian evolution and know the first thing about it, then you know that babies were born to breastfeed.

Fwiw. This doesn't mean that bottle-feeding isn't a perfectly viable alternative. But babies were born to experience the skin-to-skin contact that breastfeeding affords (cf. the book "The Continuum Concept" by Jean Liedloff). So if a baby is bottle-fed, they still need that extra dose of skin contact.

You know, if the problem was in most cases where women didn't breastfeed because there were problems with the baby latching on or that the mom couldn't make enough milk (a very, very rare case) or that she was working 13 part time jobs and couldn't work it in, then Yes, you've got a good point.

But those are NOT the most common reasons women don't breastfeed for the recommended period of time of 1 year or more (much less for the absolute minimum of 6 months).

The reason they don't is because society doesn't support breastfeeding. They don't, folks.

SO signs like this (whether they work or not, which is a valid criticism) which are trying to get people to realize that actually, YES, babies are born to breastfeed and not to drink milk out of a synthetic nipple are not designed to make mom feel guilty, in my opinion, but are more supportive of breastfeeding in general.

I support every one's decision to feed their child the best they can, blah, blah, blah. But can we at least TRY to support women who CAN breastfeed to breastfeed for the AAP's minimum recommendation of one year? PLEASE!?!?!?!

It seems to me that this is not trying to make non-breastfeeding mothers feel guilty. It is trying to ENCOURAGE new mothers to breastfeed. Breastfeeding is better for babies, there have been scientific studies to prove it. That doesn't mean everyone can do it, but what is wrong with the government trying to encourage people to engage in healthy behavior?

Do you also get mad over ads encouraging parents not to smoke around their kids?

AnitaBonita writes...

> society doesn't support breastfeeding. They don't, folks.

What the hell society are you living in, Anita? My wife and I are bottle-feeding, and when some people hear that, they look at you like you've announced you're letting the baby sleep in the backyard under a tarp. The "breast is best" mafia have no qualms about butting in and telling you, basically, you're harming your baby by using formula, despite no evidence that it's any better or worse for them.

Never in my life have I heard of someone telling a woman who breastfeeds she's hurting her baby and should really use formula

This ridiculous argument has surfaced again? Sigh. I wish people would just leave each other alone already with this issue. It's for NOBODY else to say, or even "suggest" how a parent should feed their child. Children who are feeding from a bottle filled with formula are not starving get over it already!

As an aside, almost all of the women I know who have breastfed/are breastfeeding have admitted that they do it because it burns a lot of calories. In real conversation nobody ever talks about how it's supposedly better for the baby. And if they do, it's only part of the argument, not the whole reason. That's the funny thing about this tedious discussion, that publicly these outspoken self-righteous mothers will boast of how they're doing so right by their babies by breastfeeding them, but in all actuality it's mostly because it helps to take the weight off faster, and they admit that. I was bottle fed, as were my sisters, and we all turned out okay.

Leave women alone already and let them decide for themselves how to feed their babies according to what works best for them. And as for the comment earlier that it's artificial to eat from a bottle/rubber nipple, that is just ridiculous. What would you suggest we do with orphans? Adopted babies? Quadruplets?

I, for one, am more offended by the government's guilt trip over my unhealthy eating. The constant bombardment of their "four food groups" and their "food pyraminds"...

Seriously, though. Are you kidding me? So, only extremist groups such as La Leche can encourage the World Health Organization's breast feeding recomendations? WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, people.

I think zealots on either end of the breast/bottle spectrum ruin the argument for their respective groups, and that people should be allowed to make their own choices. Theoretically though, those choices should be informed, educated ones. I have no problem with advertising which encourages healthy choices.

But once people make their choice, whichever way they go, they should never be comdemned for it. (I for one already have a plan that, should I be unable to breast feed and am given any grief about bottle feeding, I will instantly burst into tears and relate the story of how I adopted my recently deceased sister's baby...)

While it's true that the guilt police out there are strongly in favor of breastfeeding, so much so that parents are made to feel as if they are actually abusing their babies by giving them formula, it is not true that society as a whole supports breastfeeding. One need only look at the non-existent guaranteed maternity leave to know that.

Breastfeeding, especially in the early months, is a full-time job in itself. Mother and baby sometimes need to be together every 2-3 hours, 24 hours a day. So what do we do to help new mothers get through this time? Absolutely nothing. They might get 6 weeks of maternity leave, 12 if they're lucky enough to work at a company covered by the Family Medical Leave Act. After that, they're still supposed to breastfeed, of course, because if they don't, they're terrible mothers, but they have to have the lion's share of their meaningful breastfeeding relationship with a machine, probably in a bathroom stall. Now that's bliss! And a breast pump is never going to be as efficient as a baby. Most women will see their supply drop the longer they have to pump instead of putting the baby to their breast. In the face of such challenges, many women simply do what they feel is inevitable and give up. Instead of helping these women to reach the challenging 1-year goal, we lambast them for failing to reach it, telling them that their children are much more likely to be obese and even stupider than breastfed babies.

I say all of this as a woman who breastfed her son for 15 months until he self-weaned. The ONLY reason I was able to do this was that I gave birth and spent the first year of his life in Europe, where breastfeeding (and parental leave) is truly supported.

I'm of two minds about this sign. On one hand, it is true that it's important to spread the message of breastfeeding's importance. On the other, it's almost like holding a hefty prize just out of reach--the message is only as good as society's ability to support its realization.