Pump up the mams
Breast feeding in the workplace is becoming commonplace in the US, where mothers are being encouraged back to work just weeks after giving birth. Photo / Bay of Plenty Times
Could it be true that the prevalence and promotion of breastfeeding and breast pumping in the modern workplace is a government's cheap way out of providing comprehensive paid maternity leave?
Conspiracy theory, or something more? A fascinating article from the New Yorker this month finds that while American women overwhelmingly return to work just weeks after their babies are born - they are only entitled to 12 weeks' unpaid maternity leave - their employers must, by law in many states, go to a "reasonable effort" to accommodate nursing mothers and their bottled milk. What that means in some workplaces such as Goldman Sachs is that female employees can use an online booking service to book time in the company's plush lactation rooms.
Breast pump producers offer employers free advice on how to reduce absenteeism and time wasting by having the full works 'n jerks set-up for lactating mothers; food stamp grants can also be used on pumps for eligible women.
A laudable aim, one might think, but the author points out that while breast milk is indeed fantastic for baby's health, it's the physical bonding with, and presence of, the mother that also confers great benefits.
After years of formula-led feeding this was the catch-cry of the hippie era (the author referring to this period by saying "in the 1960s, nursing as a mammalian love-in began making a comeback, at least among wealthier women ... in the decades since, the womanly art of breast-feeding has yielded, slowly but surely, to the medical science of human milk.")
Sure, pumping breast milk during a busy working day can be done, but as anyone who has ever pumped her breast milk knows, the more busy you become, the more difficult it is, even with plush surrounds.
Breasts tend to fill with milk at certain periods - not taking kindly to delays from long meetings or late lunches. Pumping mothers often need to conjure up images of their babies before they can "let-down" - hardly something easy today in the middle of the workplace. It's energy intensive, and it's easy to see your milk supply dwindle when there are lots of other things happening.
So it's easy to see why in the US rates of mothers breastfeeding their young, starting at just below 75 per cent before they leave hospital, soon falls away rapidly - with babies exclusively breastfed at six months down to just 12 per cent.
What about in New Zealand? Our 14 weeks' paid maternity leave may provide some incentive for mothers to stick with breastfeeding, according to the New Zealand Breastfeeding Authority (yes, there is one!) 19-21 per cent of European and other babies are reported to be fully breastfeeding at six months. (17-18 per cent for Pacific babies, and for Maori babies this rate decreases to 13-14 per cent).
Better than the US, but not that much better. Not only that, but a new law passed in September last year apes US moves, saying that where reasonable and practicable, facilities and adequate breaks must be provided to allow mothers to breastfeed or express milk.
Fine as it goes, and surely something any humane employer would do anyway. But why doesn't the government just suck it up and pay women a reasonable wage to stay at home with their babies for six months and (try and) breastfeed them? From a health perspective, but also from a simple bonding perspective, it would be much more economic sense than all the breastfeeding legislation - and breast pumping - in the world.
On the net: Small businesses welcome law on work breaks
Pictured above: Breast feeding in the workplace is becoming commonplace in the US, where mothers are being encouraged back to work just weeks after giving birth. Photo / Bay of Plenty Times
We choose not to b/feed past 1 month for our 1st born, however due to the nature of #2 we will try to continue for as long as is possible.
Surely the pressure that surrounds this "breast is best" policy is not helping the attrition rate, and I have personally witnessed more than a few women reduced to tears by their treatment by hospital staff when they choose/or not to stop b/feeding.
It should be the mothers right to chose, and support should be given either way. I think most would agree breast is best if possible, but it isnt an excuse to persecute!
Good lord, are we hiding millions in bullion somewhere? If so, I'm sure there are better things to spend that money on. Whatever happened to personal financial responsibility for yourself - and your family? Why should the government (ie, your neighbour, your bus driver and the person sitting next to you) pay for your choices?
In order to avoid discrimination against women in the workforce, the government should pay women who choose to stay at home a full time income for at least a year, regardless of their partners salary. This encourages the best start for NZ children, helps raise our birth rate, and encourages women to have their children earlier, as well as providing an important social service that will have a long term impact.
Creating a bond and a strong family unit is not instinctive, not automatic and needs to be learned over time. This would give families the start that will hopefully help them take their children into adulthood with a strong parental guide. I think it would have a strong impact on the levels of abuse and neglect we see amongst children too.