[Rome, June 2. Image via Getty]

Nurses wait to watch a parade during celebrations on June 2, 2009 marking the country's Republic Day. Italian armed forces celebrate the 63rd anniversary of Italy's birth as a Republic. AFP PHOTO / Christophe SIMON (Photo credit should read CHRISTOPHE SIMON/AFP/Getty Images)

In the latest Atlantic, Hanna Rosin writes an interesting, in-depth piece on the tyranny of nursing culture. A mother of three, Rosin is starting to resent the pressure to breast-feed:

From the moment a new mother enters the obstetrician's waiting room, she is subjected to the upper-class parents' jingle: "Breast Is Best." Parenting magazines offer "23 Great Nursing Tips," warnings on "Nursing Roadblocks," and advice on how to find your local lactation consultant (note to the childless: yes, this is an actual profession, and it's thriving). Many of the stories are accompanied by suggestions from the ubiquitous parenting guru Dr. William Sears, whose Web site hosts a comprehensive list of the benefits of mother's milk. "Brighter Brains" sits at the top: "I.Q. scores averaging seven to ten points higher!" (Sears knows his audience well.) The list then moves on to the dangers averted, from infancy on up: fewer ear infections, allergies, stomach illnesses; lower rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease. Then it adds, for good measure, stool with a "buttermilk-like odor" and "nicer skin"-benefits, in short, "more far-reaching than researchers have even dared to imagine."

But, says Rosin, the facts just don't support the mania.

The medical literature looks nothing like the popular literature. It shows that breast-feeding is probably, maybe, a little better; but it is far from the stampede of evidence that Sears describes. More like tiny, unsure baby steps: two forward, two back, with much meandering and bumping into walls. A couple of studies will show fewer allergies, and then the next one will turn up no difference. Same with mother-infant bonding, IQ, leukemia, cholesterol, diabetes.

More to the point, Rosin argues that the breastfeeding debate takes place in a vacuum, without considering the cost to the mother and her marriage. In her opinion, it almost single-handedly sabotages the high-minded ideal of equal labor division between husband and wife, and the benefits can be outweighed by the stresses: "if a breast-feeding mother is miserable, or stressed out, or alienated by nursing, as many women are, if her marriage is under stress and breast-feeding is making things worse, surely that can have a greater effect on a kid's future success than a few IQ points." In conclusion, she argues that while breast may be best, "it seems reasonable to put breast-feeding's health benefits on the plus side of the ledger and other things-modesty, independence, career, sanity-on the minus side, and then tally them up and make a decision."

Given the responses the discussion the piece has generated on Slate's XX site, clearly Rosin has struck a chord with moms who resent the class-burdened pressure to reject any nursing alternative. And given its status as the inarguable central tenet of modern parenting, a backlash was probably inevitable. Jill Lepore recently discussed the tyranny of the breast pump; Rosin has taken the argument a defiant step further, and clearly the time is nigh.

What we're always struck by in reading these debates is how impossible consensus will ever be. Think about it: it's a subject about which no mother can be objective. Who is prepared to admit she's not doing the best for her child, whatever that means? From defensive "well-you-turned-out-fine-with-formula" arguments of prior generations to the sanctimony of helicopter parents to the pragmatism of the new backlashers, the one thing you can know for sure is that everyone has an agenda. However good and removed a journalist, how can a mother separate the discussion from her own experience - and why should she? As Rosin says, the argument cannot exist in a vacuum, but as a result the discussions are ultimately personal. Someone who's childless is likely to be patronized with "you don't understand" smugness, whereas an experienced mother's experience is going to be colored by particulars. To those of us without children, we're struck less by the particulars of the debate than the fact that, for women, it's unavoidable, a cultural controversy from which one can't opt out. Many politically charged issues nowadays are somewhat optional; feeding your baby is not, and that women are inescapably wrapped up in something both personal and political - by virtue of one of the most natural human processes in the world - is the biggest irony of all.

The Case Against Breast-Feeding [Atlantic]

Related: Baby Food [New Yorker]

Earlier: Milky Way: The Long, Strange History Of Breastfeeding

So what gives? There's so much judgment (see Page Six's nasty treatment of Kelly's continuing to breast feed her "walking, talking" two year old) on both the pro-and-anti-breast feeding sides, we decided to look up what some fairly impartial sources had to say on the matter, since all of us here are childless whores who don't know about birthing babies.

Weight Loss: Dr. Joan Meek, a pediatrician and author of the American Academy of Pediatrics' new mother's guide to breastfeeding tells MSNBC that when it comes to calories expended, "It's really how much total breast milk the baby takes in over the period of the day. The average mom will make about 24 to 28 ounces of breast milk a day. It takes about 500 calories to make that much milk. Some of those calories come from fat stored during the pregnancy or previously, and some come from the mother's daily nutrition." However! "We don't recommend women significantly reduce calories during breastfeeding. It's more helpful to increase exercise. Most women will actually lose weight in spite of what they're eating. Many feel they can practically eat anything they want, which is unlike any other time in life! Enjoy it!"

Hurtiness: Doesn't it seem like having a wee one clamped to your breast might be a tad bit painful? According to the La Leche League , "Some deep breast twinges during let down can occur as the milk ducts constrict to force the milk towards the nipple. As your body becomes more used to breastfeeding, these disappear." They also say that it's all about positioning, and "Your back, arms, feet and elbows should be well-supported, and your shoulders and neck muscles relaxed." But, you can also get infections like mastitis, and if you don't empty your funbags frequently enough, you could get flat nipples that are difficult for babies to latch on to.

Duration of Nursing: Dr. Meek says that 6 months is standard, and she recommends going through the child's first birthday. However, "Mother and baby should decide when to wean," and the World Health Organization says that up to two years is kosher.

Udderly Icky [NYP]
Salma Weighs In On Breastfeeding And Postpartum Pounds [Lil' Sugar]
Answering Your Questions About Breastfeeding [MSNBC]
Breastfeeding FAQ [CDC]

A farm worker holds a piglet and two of the three tiger cubs abandoned by their mother last week at a zoo in Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine, Wednesday, Sept. 24, 2008. A pig at a farm in eastern Ukraine agreed to nurse the three little tigers together with a dozen of its own piglets. — AP

[Image via AP.]

Related: Breast Friends [Babble]

Nothing good! According to Business Week, " While [women are] getting more jobs, their pay is stagnant. Also, most share households — and bills — with the men who are losing jobs. And the 'female' economy can't stay strong for long if the 'male' economy weakens too much."

The reason men are losing such a disproportionate number of jobs is because the two sectors that are truly ailing, manufacturing and construction, are both over 70% male. The trend shows no sign of slowing because the next sector to be hit — securities — is 60% male. Finally, men have a much more difficult time getting back on the horse, so to speak, after losing a job. Claudia Goldin, a Harvard University labor historian, tells BW, "Men are having a harder time than women getting back on track after losing a job. "For a man to move from a $20- or $30-an-hour union job to being a Wal-Mart greeter is devastating."

So in summary, even though American women are gaining jobs, their economic stresses are still considerable. Bill McInturff, a pollster for John McCain, tells BW, "In focus groups they talk about how 'I'm taking care of my parents, his parents, buying groceries, taking kids to the doctor.' These women are tired."

The Slump: It's a Guy Thing [Businessweek]