In her best selling new book, French feminist theorist Elisabeth Badinter argues that parenting practices like breastfeeding and co-sleeping are undermining my status.
But in my new essay over at Slate, I make the case that Badinter’s own major financial ties to the infant formula industry – along with her seeming lack of concern with proactively disclosing those ties – undermines her status as a serious academic, and as someone who has the ethical standing to have this debate about breastfeeding at all.
What do YOU think?
(And here is PART ONE in my Slate series on Badinter’s book, running this week.)
I think that full disclosure is appropriate here, thanks for pointing out this connection.
I do however enjoy reading these commentaries about women against other women. It certainly gives a lot of food for thought as to why feminism and natural mothering are at odds with one another when they should be supportive. Just this week,I wrote a post about my feelings on this.
Why do we as women continue to take sides in the "mommy wars"?
Kind of blows it wide open right? Gah!
I am not a mother, but I really appreciate your dialogue on Slate. I think you're bringing up some serious oversights in this discussion and the connection between Badinter and the PR firm and Nestle is one that can't be glibly ignored.
More importantly, why are French women writing books about American parenting at all? And why are American women inclined to believe them?
Anyway, so many of the commentators at Slate seem to live for pointing out how superior they are to the writers at Slate and yet not one of them has ever put themselves out there and written an article of their own. It gets tiresome which is why I'm posting here and not there.
strange, that a publisher would go for that. Does she discuss the benefits of breastfeeding, so her readers can get be well informed? i suspect not, but am amused by how it might be approached…"regardless of the fact that mother's milk has been proven benefical for most infants, and the very reason the mother produces it, engaging in this type of relationship with your child, undermines your status." Absurd.
After reading your essay yesterday, I downloaded the preview pages of The Conflict. I don't prescribe to any parenting philosophy. I work part-time. I am about as neutral and torn on this topic as one could be. I understand both the working world and parenting world.
About 9 pages in I read something to the effect of (and I don't have it with me so I'm paraphrasing) that being a mother is at the heart of womens lives again, but it was written in such a way to make it sound like women are *settling* for child centered lives because it is some new trend to do so.
The notion of breast feeding, making baby food, co-sleeping was made to sound like a chore. Or at very least like busy work for women to keep their minds of their wasted lives. Or at very, very least a trendy lifestyle.
I thought about this last night while making dinner. And then while cleaning it up. And while giving my kids their baths. And then tucking them in. And it really hit me… THIS is what I love. This is what life is about for ME. Maybe not everyone. And I think that is where this writer is coming from. She doesn't get it. To HER – its stupid. But to some others its a joy.
I was prepared to get all "I am woman hear me roar" after reading it… but now I'm just offended.
Nobody put a gun to my head to make baby food or nurse my babies. I love it. When I'm at work I think about my husband and kids. I went to part-time to be with them more. Why is that un-feminist? Why is that a set back for women?
This is a very interesting series. Thanks… can't wait to hear more.
(And yes, I'm going to read the entire book.)
very well said C. I think you're right, she just doesn't get it. And how unfortunate for her, to look at raising kids as a chore, rather than a joy to behold! I was not put on this earth to raise my kids, but since I decided to, then you'd better believe, I'm going to take responsibility for raising them the best I can without getting all whiny about what I'm missing out on…which is nothing. As a parent, it's not about me, me, me…and that's a good thing. I have lots of life to live once my kids are grown up and are out of the house…I certainly don't feel that they dictate what I do…I do it because it's what I feel is best for them and for our family…which ultimately, is also best for me. again…she doesn't get that, and that makes me feel kinda sorry for her!
I think breastfeeding and making baby food (and doing laundry and cooking dinner and bathing children) ARE chores. What else would you call them? Co-sleeping didn't take any effort (at least in my case) so I wouldn't call that a chore.
I'm reserving judgment until I read the book.
There are chores you do because you have to do them and there are other chores that can be both a chore and a hobby. I love cooking and gardening. I also enjoyed breastfeeding. I hate cleaning, doing laundry, paying the bills, etc. (thankfully my spouse does all of the cleaning and most of the laundry).
Annie I agree. I do think there's some interpretation involved with the word "chore." think, "labour of love" If we want to measure in terms of effort, breasfeeding requires way less effort than bottle feeding…mixing, sterilizing, etc.(I had to supplement for a while with my oldest) Yes, I suppose they are chores, but not in the big old pain-in-the-neck sort of way
I mostly bottle-fed my first child and breastfed my second for 2.5 years. There is NO WAY breastfeeding takes less effort unless you're stranded on a desert island with no source of formula. Good grief. (P.S. No need to sterilize.)
sorry Clisby. I disagree. I feel that breastfeeding is way easier. Where's the effort in unclipping a bra and latching a baby vs constantly cleaning bottles, mixing or pouring formula?
Breastfeeding for me was not at all a chore. I made milk easily and released it easily, I could pump a 4 ounce bottle with a manual pump in less than 5 minutes, my son was able to drain both breasts in about 15 minutes or less each time we nursed. It was an easy, special time to bond with my son, and as a bonus, I never had to spend money on formula or mix it, and only sterilized a handful of bottles per week rather than several every day. I never had to warm up a bottle in the middle of the night. I never felt enslaved or even inconvenienced by nursing.
I realize that other people do have difficulty, but not everyone does, so to be judged as "enslaved" because I breastfed seems a perfect illustration of why this entire discussion is unproductive. Not everything works the same way for everyone in every situation.
Love your kids. Consult your pediatrician for health issues. Do what works for all of you, and don't assume what works for you works for others. That's it.
Right! I wasn't "enslaved" because I breastfed my 2nd for 2.5 years. I did it because I read the research, and I was convinced it was healthier. But it was definitely a chore, and a LOT more work than formula-feeding. It was not a better bonding experience than bottle-feeding; in my case, I'd say it was the opposite. But to me, health outweighs bonding and feel-good stuff, so I stuck with it and by the time my son was 4-5 months old, it wasn't really bad.
I did extended breastfeeding with both my children (18 months and 2 years), and was in tears of agony for the first 6 weeks with each of them, but was made to feel that I would be a failure as a mother if I did not breastfeed my children due to all the moralistic and heavy-handed breastfeeding campaigns. I was told, over and over, that I was not doing the best for my children, that I was depriving them, if I did not breastfeed.
The research does show that breastfeeding is healthier, but if you take a closer look at that research and put it into context, you will see that it shows breastfeeding is only *slightly* healthier. In fact, the difference is so small that it simply does not justify the heavy-handed pressure placed on mothers.
Support, not pressure, and honesty not exaggeration about the research, and an end to all the moralizing criticism — that is what I would like to see happen with respect to how breastfeeding is handled.
It's strange that you found it to be more work than formula feeding. I formula fed my first, breastfed my second – and holy heck my life is so much easier breastfeeding. I find formula feeding to be a chore, can't say I'd categorize breastfeeding the same way, with how little effort it takes for me, but this of course, is my own personal experience. For some, breastfeeding is downright hard.
As I read her book last night, her bias on the breastfeeding issue was so apparent. She chose the most extreme examples to demonstrate pressure to breastfeed and never mentions anywhere the extreme pressure to give up on breastfeeding.
My belief, ultimately, is that there is too much pressure to breastfeed and too little support for breastfeeding. If all mothers who wanted to breastfeed were given a decent shot at it, this wouldn't need to be nearly as controversial an issue.
I think the Milwaukee poster was not a good choice to illustrate your point. I'm pretty sure that was developed in direct response to a rash of children's deaths due to co-sleeping in communities where there are high risk factors for co-sleeping being dangerous. It wasn't really meant as a promotion across all communities. (And I say this as a mom who wound up co-sleeping over the years – anything I can do safely for a few more hours of sleep! Ive been functioning on too little for too long!)
Regardless of the intended audience for those posters, a more nuanced message should have been used. Sleeping with your baby is like letting your baby sleep with a knife doesn't help anyone understand the conditions under which co-sleeping is safer/less safe.
I've been reading these debates and have enjoyed the format. I have refrained from commenting as I generally take the stance of, "Do what's best for you." However, I feel inclined to comment today.
For the most part, I agree with your stance Katie. I have never felt enslaved to my four children. I was practicing most of the fundamentals of Attachment Parenting long before I knew there was even a term for such a style. Sleeping with my babies, wearing them around, feeding them on demand were all things that I enjoyed AND made my life easier. It was what was most natural to me.
I totally agree there is a negative opinion of co-sleeping / family beds and many parents are discouraged to do so. We have raised many an eyebrow when we have disclosed that our babies have slept with us, and have received many a chuckle when I try to explain that co-sleeping as infants actually made my kids better sleepers when they were older.
However, I must absoultey disagree about the pressures women face to breastfeed. There is an outstanding amount of pressure to do so! I say this as a mama who has bottle fed every one of my four children.
I bottle fed my first child and defended my decision over and over and over to very disagreeable and judgmental responses. When my second came along, I chose to try breastfeeding solely to avoid the condescending looks and long winded lectures. Turns out, I hated nursing and dreaded feeding my daughter. We had many a problem with latching as well as a very limited milk supply. It was awful. I regret so very much that I put both of us through that just to avoid the judgements made against me. The minute I put her on the bottle, our relationship completely improved.
There was quite a gap between my top two kids and my bottom two children. By the time 3 and 4 entered my lives – I still faced that same critisim, those same lectures from every doctor, every nurse, every nursing friend I had as I had nearly 10 years prior; This time it was worse! However, by then I didn't care what people thought and knew bottle feeding was what worked for my family. BUT, I still faced all of that pressure despite knowing my body and what was best. Even now, when I am in a new social setting or an established one, if I so admit that I never breastfed, the response is always the same – "You didn't?! How could you not?" as if I am somehow less of a mother or that I have slighted my kids from day one.
I was even hesitant to share this opinion here as for certain there will be someone who cannot believe I didn't nurse any of my kids.
As you said, there are more serious issues facing all mothers that really need to be discussed – absoultey. I wish we could put aside these staunch disagreeing opinions of the less important things and solidify our views and our power to change the more valuable ones.
Melissa, I'm so sorry for what you have experienced as a mother who bottlefed her children. No one has the right to make those sorts of judgements about other mothers' choices, but sadly, many people feel that they do. I say this as a mother who breastfed, but was appalled by the judgement surrounding breast vs bottle, and the way mothers who bottlefed were attacked for their choice.
I am hesitant to post this, but feel that it is useful to have another voice and viewpoint in this discussion, and the post blow, by an OB, raises very valid points. The original article linked to within the post is also very interesting and worth checking out.
http://skepticalob.blogspot.com/2008/09/breastfee…
Thank you, Monica! I thought that article had a really point.
I know it's not the same thing, but I saw this blog post today and it made me think of you.
http://perilsofdivorcedpauline.com/social-issues/…
I'm not sure why we are even talking about this quite honestly. I don't care if you breast feed or choose to wear your baby 24/7.
Some women do these things for them selves. It makes them feel good and there is nothing wrong with that. I chose not to for different reasons.
If you line up 20 older kids, you can't pick out the ones that were "worn" by their moms or breastfed. Let's worry about more important things than this please.
Also, just a side note….I hate the term "baby wearing" geesh.
I really could care less what a 68 year old French billionaire has to say about, well, just about anything. Irregardless of whether she has ulterior motives or not. Our lives, experiences, challenges, circumstances, cultures, upbringing, etc. could not be more different. I hadn't even heard of the book before Katie mentioned it (maybe I live under a rock).
I am not sure what kind of full disclosure Katie thinks should be written in the book. And maybe she is just flat out trying to keep the money flowing in with her take on breastfeeding. Then again, maybe she truly believes it does undermine and enslave women. I don't care. I am not sure how much of the book is devoted to breastfeeding, but was under the impression that was just one part of modern parenting she feels enslaves women. Well she can feel or believe any darned thing she wants to. And she can write a book about it, and get it published. As the wonderful Glennon from Momastery recently wrote, when asked if she was proud to get a book deal, (and I am paraphrasing here) "not really because that is pretty arbitrary. Lots of people who are great writers don't get book deals, and many who aren't do (Snooki has a book that is on the bestseller lists!!)."
Anyway, from a quick google search, it appears Badinter has been writing on this or similar topics for years. I guess it is her thing. So be it. How much influence does she really have on American women? I don't know anyone who would read this book and think, well darnit, I had better stop breastfeeding, cosleeping or whatever because this French woman says I'm enslaved! And if they would, well…..
Katie, you seem to think that you've got a real gotcha in pointing out Badinter's financial ties to the infant formula industry. It doesn't seem that way to me, and you seem to be ignoring her actual arguments.
From Crimes Against Logic (Jamie Whyte, 2003):
On the Motive Fallacy:
It is perfectly possible to have some interest in holding or expressing an opinion and for that opinion to be true. . . In other words, you don't show a person's opinion to be false just by showing he has a motive for holding it. . . Committing the Motive Fallacy ends a debate, not by properly refuting one of the positions, but simply by changing the subject."
Why attack Badinter's motives? Why not respond to her actual points, which, as I understand it, is that the current idealized style of naturalistic motherhood places an enormous burden on women?
Do you think Badinter is correct about this? My sense is the cultural standard of the "good mother" has increased a great deal in the last few decades. 24 hour a day attachment parenting, longterm breastfeeding, organic homemade baby food, restrictions on tv and other electronic babysitters, constant engagement with your baby/toddler – my mother, who was a "good mother" of the 60's, was not expected to do any of those things.
And while I'm not an economist I am married to one. Breastfeeding isn't free; its cost is paid by the woman's body and her time.
Katie, I have enormous respect for your writing and your opinions. But this hasn't been one of your most persuasive efforts.
I have not read the book. However, about this:
"My sense is the cultural standard of the “good mother” has increased a great deal in the last few decades. 24 hour a day attachment parenting, longterm breastfeeding, organic homemade baby food, restrictions on tv and other electronic babysitters, constant engagement with your baby/toddler – my mother, who was a “good mother” of the 60′s, was not expected to do any of those things."
Where in the world (much less the US) do you think people are expected to do any of those things?
If that's really the argument in this book, then I don't need to read it – it's complete nonsense.
Are you asking literally where in the world? Northwest Washington DC; Hyde Park, Chicago; Wellesley, Mass; these are the places I lived when my children were young*. I don't think that Badinter, or anyone, really, is suggesting that this cultural ideal is universal – but it is a common, influential standard among certain middle class, urbanish population groups. And it seems quite clear that some women, not all, but some, have felt the pressure of meeting those very high standards. Maybe these things don't apply to your life and lived experience at all. But I don't think that Badinter is saying that all US parenting is like this; she's saying where this phenomenon exists, it's bad for women. Again, that's her argument, and I, like you, haven't read the book, so I'm just going by what's in the reviews.
My experience was definitely not universal, but it did exist and it was real.
*And these places aren't the most extreme of the naturalistic parenting enclaves.
"But I don’t think that Badinter is saying that all US parenting is like this; she’s saying where this phenomenon exists, it’s bad for women."
In other words, this phenomenon exists in a vanishingly small number of places in the U.S.
I don't think it's a vanishingly small number of places. 82% of Americans live in urbanized areas. This pressure doesn't exist in all of them or all parts of them, but I'd say any college town, upper-middle class area of a major city, or "granola-crunchy" neighborhood regardless of income would have a lot, and you'd probably see some in most middle- to upper-middle class suburbs. That is a LOT of the country.
In other words, this phenomenon exists in a vanishingly small number of places in the U.S.
Actually, the concern is that this phenomenon is increasing, not vanishing.
That was my personal observation upon returning to North America, and I find it very disturbing. Because there is more and more pressure on women to do absolutely everything to increase their child’s chances for success, and when they don’t, they are roundly criticized. And it’s not on just a few mommy boards on the internet as Katie has suggested.
After reading this, the book I am going to be reading soon is Crimes Against Logic. That paragraph on the Motive Fallacy was enlightening and spot on.
This. It seemed like a real waste of Slate space to use up entire entries about this conflict of interest. It's important, but what about the issues in the book?
I suppose the continued arguments and judgments regarding other people's parenting styles only show why this book is a best seller.
I've taken care of my son to the best of my abilities. I really don't think the details should be open to someone else's judgement, let alone some French broad with a publisher.
I'm tired of the French smackdown of North Americans too but Badinter is a pretty long-standing feminist so I bet the spin is more marketing driven than anything else.
I don't know Katie…I brought my son home about 6.5 years ago and at that time I was really into AP (still am with my little guy). But I didn't feel like the pressure was to also make all my own yoghurt, keep my house Pinterest-worthy, and homeschool for life. I think the bar has been raised in between — maybe the Europeans were ahead, I don't know — and I do see people who are going overboard.
I have one friend in particular who I totally support in her parenting but I honestly think she has set herself absolutely impossible goals and that she is stressing herself out.
I don't think the problem is AP and Badinter's made a mistake there; I think the problem is the idea of perfect parenting. I think there is an idea that if people just tweak their parenting just right their kids will be happy and successful. Like it's a Quality Process or something. But I do think that's real pressure, largely on women.
We've had some trouble with our local school and the answer is often "you're smart; you should homeschool." As if it is nothing at all for me to give up my career and stay home because the school has issues…as if there is no economic impact to the family and the brunt of it long-term in pension, salary grid, etc. wouldn't fall squarely on me as the woman.
For our family it's a relationship. But I still feel the pressure sometimes. I wish you would push a little deeper on this one.
Hi, Katie. I always enjoy your writing and I was really pleased to see you writing in Slate, which is a publication that I think does better than most in terms of exploring issues in a thoughtful way.
I've generally agreed with a lot of what you've had to say in this series — especially your second article — but I don't think the conflict of interest argument works, at least not in as strong a form as you're putting forward. It's a less mendacious** version of the same argument anti-vax folks make against scientists who are involved in making vaccines. I say that in part because of the Motive Fallacy mentioned above and in part because Badinter doesn't need baby formula to be successful in order for her to be tremendously wealthy. Suppose over the next few years formula feeding fell to something like 5% or 10% of babies worldwide (basically only babies who were adopted at birth or where breastfeeding was absolutely 100% contraindicated — HIV infection in the mother, for example), it would hurt some of Publicis's clients, yes. Nestle would probably ultimately be fine — they're diversified — but some of the others would be in critical trouble. Fine. But Publicis wouldn't go under, and Badinter's personal financial situation probably wouldn't be much affected.
I think it's great to point out where potential conficts of interest exist, but conflicts of interest don't automatically render her points invalid. The issues of what the role of mothers should be in their children's lives and what society expects from mothers and the support (formal and otherwise) that women get or don't get for their parenting decisions are much more important.
** I say less mendacious because in the case of vaccines they absolutely require the resources of either a government or a pharmaceutical company and a Ph.D. or an M.D./Ph.D (so if you develop vaccines or immunological treatments you will almost certainly end up doing work in collaboration with pharmaceutical companies), and because so many of the "heroes" of the anti-vax movement make good money hawking alternative treatments for "vaccine injury" and serving as expert witnesses. The difference here is that advertising has a lower barrier to entry and any number of different things that you could be doing with it.
Katie, I have to agree with Victoria.
I am very disappointed by your continuing criticism of Elisabeth Badminter's by essentially dismissing her as a shill for the formula industry.
Elisabeth Badminter has been an outspoken feminist for over 30 years, and as Victoria pointed out, is hardly dependent upon baby formula for her wealth.
I am disappointed that thus far, in two of your entries, you have relied upon an ad hominem attack. As both a mother and working woman, you must have many insights to counter Elisabeth Badminter's arguments, and hope that you will be doing so in future Slate posts.
I also agree with Victoria.
While pointing out the writer's ties to Nestle is fair, writing her off completely because of her inherited stake in a very large company that represents another very large company that makes infant formula seems like an odd personal attack.
Publicis has close to 50,000 employees and Nestle itself is a massive company that owns many food brands and other things you may not associate with them such as Loreal, Ralph Lauren and Armani.
I find it hard to believe that Ms. Badinter has any real control of Nestle's advertising/production/sales of infant formula – or in the design of the Armani spring collection for that matter.
Your argument really turned me off from reading any more of the Slate essays on this topic.
Elisabeth Badminter's book is not a personal attack against American mothers or their parenting. The book is merely being released here now, after having originally been released in France and other European countries.
Elisabeth Badminter, a respected feminist, is trying to argue that women are being hurt by social pressures to conform to parenting styles which require too much (unnecessary) sacrifice.
Her ideas are worth discussing.
Dismissing the book because she is French or wealthy or has indirect connections to companies that as part of their complex corporate offerings produce formula are all forms of informal fallacies, and fail to deal with the issues that matter.
I could not agree more. But this is Katie's style of writing. Take an argument, not really create a counter-argument, but "uncover" some characteristic of the writer/institution/office, over-dramatize it, and side-step the argument. It's the equivalent of voluntarily dissolving into sobs when your friend/spouse/boss wants to have an honest discussion with you about your relationship/work.
And in case Katie wants to dismiss my comment as another anti-AP person. I breastfed both of my kids, 22 and 16 months respectively and they frequently slept in my bed because I was too damn tired to walk over to the crib and put them in there. And I cooked/cook from scratch and mostly eat organic. But I also worked and there were times I did feel a bit enslaved, especially when I was attached to a breastpump in my office, hoping I could fill up the bottles before my next meeting. The only argument I agree with is the argument concerning family friendly leave policies, affordable childcare.
yeah, outraged, if Katie (or anyone) dismisses your comment, it won't have anything to do with the type of parent you are…it will be because of the type of person you are. You're pretty much doing exactly to Katie what you suggest she does…how ironic
I'm really hoping we are done with this subject……sorry, but it's kind of dumb.
Women VS Women…….WE just don't need it.
Like I always say: CLASS WARS, NOT MOMMY WARS!
You made me laugh out loud in Starbucks. Thanks!
I'm going to go on a limb and bet Nestle advertises on HGTV, so it is paying your salary. Come on.
Am I the only one who thinks that Badinter’s age might make her a bit out of touch with this generation of parents? No one seems to be mentioning this fact or the fact that she has a huge stake in formula given her millionaire status with Nestle. I answer the question, “Who is Elisabeth Badinter” here:
http://www.themommypsychologist.com/2012/04/27/wh…
Katie, did you even bother to read the book, or did you stop at the (quite honestly, relatively minor) Nestle ties?
Here's an object lesson for you on how to critique Badinter on the merits of her ideas, not the conspiracies of her associations.