I have to agree with you. I find this article to be completely unacceptable in the way it presents this issue. There is no reason that breastfeeding should necessarily cause a woman to lose income. They can pump when they are at home or if necessary go into the ladies room at work and pump. If you work in an office environment, many employers will even make an empty office or other space available for the mother to use for this purpose if they are worried that the bathroom is not clean enough for them. By pumping in this way they should be able to provide their baby with more than enough milk for the person taking care of them to feed them while the mother is gone. It is not like pumping takes an inordinate amount of time. I do not know many employers who would begrudge a mother a couple of ten to fifteen minute breaks during the day to pump milk for their baby. After all, employers tolerate smokers taking smoke breaks throughout the day. Employers these days are very amenable to making allowances for things like this if for no other reason than to avoid getting sued. That said, a decision to have a baby comes with certain adjustments to your lifestyle. If your work situation makes it difficult for you the pump milk during the day, then that is something you need to consider both as part of your decision to breast feed as well as your decision to have the baby to start with. If the woman's career is more important to her than raising her baby, then maybe she should not have had the kid to start with. Life is full of choices and people need to take responsibility for their own decisions instead of whining and expecting the whole world to change to accommodate them and the decisions they make. I also find it very hard to believe that minor changes to their work schedule during the time they are breast feeding would affect a woman's salary five years later. It sounds like they reduced their work hours to spend more time with their baby but still wanted to get paid the same amount. This is not a reasonable expectation. If their salary is still being affected five years later is this because they are still working fewer hours to spend more time with their child. If so, this is a personal choice and not the fault of the employer or anyone else other than the mother.

Actually pumping in a restroom is very unsanitary. Think about it do you want your lunch made there.

It is indeed disgusting to put financial cost on nurturing and bonding with the baby.

And even if you do - why don't you tell us the cost of not breastfeeding - allergies, colic and low immunity ADHD and what not.

My wife Breast feed both of our children for approximately 18 months. Obviously solids were added in at what about 3 month something like that. However she, took the time to pump, she worked her ass off to do both. Yet she is still punished for being a female, that "splits her time."

Do not get me wrong, her productivity never dropped below her male colleagues. She is a college professor and brings in more grant money than all but one very senior member of her department and in rated in the top 25 of the entire University( a major State University of over 40,000).

She is out performs her male counter points in every way. Grant money, publications, graduation rates of Graduate students, Invited speaking, in placement of graduate students in prime positions she kicks the crap out of nearly everyone at the University.

Yet pay wise she is a second class citizen. She makes about 10% less than the lowest preforming male in her college. When you compare her to those males that actually perform at her level University wide, she makes about 50% of what they make.

She actually had a Dean say to her face that the reason males make more than she does is they have to support families. The good old boy system is still solidly in place even at our University systems.

It is wrong and the DoJ should be addressing many of these cases as civil rights cases.

I'm confused, why don't you just pump before work?

This story is absolutely rediculous.

The cost of breastfeeding is more than offset by the health of the baby (savings on medical expenses down the road). Besides, this is not all about money, people!

Studies like these are stupid and work to limit the freedoms we enjoy.

Yes - it is absolutely ridiculous to have information. I'd much rather make snap decisions about raising my child without any indication if it has personal consequences to my financial life five years down the road. That way we don't take something a sacred as feeding our children and weigh it against the impact of being able to pay the mortgage and house the family. These disgusting reporters....

Blake - post #1.5 - you have to pump every 3-4 hours (more often for some women). Your body continuously makes milk. A baby either has to nurse, or you have to pump...otherwise it will just come out on it's own. Not fun ;)

breastfeeding makes smarter and healthier offspring. 20 years later it pays off more then the loss of income at the start.

JenAllen- Gotcha!!! Never knew that. Granted, I'm not married and don't have kids. LOL

From the article, "One factor that explained much of the drop in income was a reduction in hours".

Gee ya thiiink! When I work less I get paid less too.

Part of why this is would be also that many companies don't support breast feeding and punish women for it by no facilities, no break time in a place that is for breastfeeding, and otherwise treating women like second-class citizens if they dare to not only give birth, but to feed their child with their milk.

How about instead saying if a woman breast feeds she makes less it is that if she breast feeds and there isn't a support system she will often end up having to choose between work and her child. Yes, many choose their kids. So yes, that makes sense and shouldn't be the case. Women already often make less than men and aren't hired if a man is available with the skills since she "might" have a baby or has children at home.

this depends on the time of feeding and the person being fed...

Ram, that is what the article says. Did you read through to the end of it?

I think a lot of commenters on this article have got hold of the wrong end of the stick here. The study's authors aren't saying, breast feeding is a big financial hit, so don't do it. They are saying, breastfeeding is a big financial hit, so there should be legislation to create more nursing-friendly workplaces so that it is not such a big financial hit. Because breastfeeding is important and should be encouraged. Read the whole article!

As for the study’s policy implications, Rippeyoung and Noonan said their research highlights the need to consider federal legislation that would more broadly protect the rights of all mothers to breastfeed at the workplace and compensate them for the unpaid labor associated with this type of infant feeding, especially if the government is going to continue to push for women to breastfeed.

Until 2010, the authors said, no federal legislation existed in this arena, which meant that employers were not bound by federal law to accommodate or not discriminate against breastfeeding mothers. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 includes limited protections for breastfeeding that simply ensure women get breaks to express their breast milk during the work day and have non-bathroom space where this activity can take place.

“Currently, breastfeeding promotion focuses almost exclusively on encouraging women to breastfeed—without providing adequate economic and social supports to facilitate the practice—a reality that helps reproduce gender, class, and racial inequality,” Rippeyoung said. “Legislation more supportive of breastfeeding would include paid parental leave and onsite daycares. Unless these or other policies are put in place, formula-feeding will continue to be the only realistic option for many women in the United States.”

http://www.asanet.org/press/breastfeeding_isnt_free_study.cfm

There's a lot of social value in breastfeeding, including lower medical costs for the kids down the road, and smarter, better-adjusted adults.

We should be willing to help with the costs women undertake to achieve these results. Common sense!

First of all, those who have never done it and have no experience with breast feeding or pumping at work shouldn't be commenting, because you have no idea of what you have to manuever around. To the men (and some women) who comment, oh, why don't you just pump at home before work? That's not how it works, you need to express your milk at regular intervals to keep up supply. To those who suggest going into the bathroom... really? I'd like to suggest a few activities for you to do in the bathroom, and see if you have the same thoughts. For those assuming that all woman work in an office, or are given enough leeway to choose the times in which they have breaks, well, that's your close-minded view of the world coming through. Open your eyes to the fact that not everyone lives like you. To those accusing the article of "putting a price on breastfeeding" please work on your reading comprehension skills. The article is saying that there are often undiscussed costs with breastfeeding that need to be exposed, discussed, and rectified.

So an employer ( someone that has invested their time and money into a business) should be made to provide another "service" because of someone elses personal choices? NO your choices have consequences, IF you choose to have a family, raising a family has costs and time involved and your choice to have a family should not become a cost for me or an employer.

This sounds like the author of the study has a spilled milk attitude about her inability to breast feed her babies. So she conducted a study to justify her abandonment of breast feeding. But it looks like her study has limited validity because it contains inherent biases. For example, she didn't show that the two groups she was comparing, breast feeders and non-breast feeders, were equally matched for commitment to and time spent nurturing and caring for their families. This would have taken them away from or perhaps made them less committed to work tasks and therefore less likely to get raises in pay. There is also the issue of costs of not breast feeding including the health costs for the child as mentioned by another post (above), the loss of "bonding" time and its impact on the care of the child and subsequently on the child's physical and psychological development, the costs to society of a suboptimally developed population of children, etc.. And the article doesn't mention whether the investigators have received funding from the dairy industry or baby formula makers.

Bluthunder

You sound like you came into business in the 19th century. Like Andrew Carnegie ready to call in the Pinkertons. Today employers are responsible for many things besides just paying their employees for their work: health insurance, worker's compensation, retirement plans, maintaining a safe workplace according to OSHA rules, etc.. The best companies have employee health promotion plans and work to try to keep their employees happy and healthy so they will perform better in their jobs. What business school did you graduate from? And where do you plan on getting your future employees and customers from, if no one who works has a family? Sounds like you have a "dead-end" strategy.

It's not their idea of entitlement. In most states it is a legal entitlement. The woman profiled here worked in a job where, if she was full time, her company wasn't obeying the law by giving her a time and place to pump.

I got a sense that the article author just plain failed to come out and state the obvious. That is that people who are dedicated to their jobs are more successful than those who are not as dedicated. As a general rule mothers who breast feed are dedicated to their child. Although not necessarily more dedicated than a mother who bottle feeds, one can easily see that a mother who breast feeds does make more of an effort for the kid. More effort for the kid, less effort for the boss.

As the author pointed out, it doesn't have to be that way, but it does seem to work out that way.

Milking sessions? Really? I pumped during MY lunch hour and the only choice was a bathroom. No other breaks during the day....and that was disruptive how?

Teresa, nobody here used the word disruptive? Only you. The one female worker I had would take her big "box" out 4 times a day and would be gone for an unterdetermined time saying "my right" under the law.

Your dedication is rare and why the article was written...............

Seven2Seven, you may not have used the word disruptive, but saying that it takes "large amounts away from doing your job" certainly implies it.

I worked full time through all my pregnancies and after. After breastfeeding steadily for the first 6 weeks, the milk becomes easily pumped and takes at most about 15 minutes......maybe faster if using an electric pump (I'm too old - they didn't even make them in my day......I used a manual pump)). Breast fed before leaving for work (without even waking the baby, just picking up and feeding before I left for work).......hubby got the kids up and off to daycare or school. Then I would pump either once or twice during my work shift, then breast fed them as soon as I got home and at bedtime. Didn't affect my income or work day at all. In the article it states they did the study on mothers who breast fed for greater than 6 months.........I think the numbers are probably squewed due to the fact that longterm breast feeding mothers have probably cut down their work hours or decided to become stay at home mothers, at least for a while, so that they could breast feed and also spend more time with the babies. That is a choice they make. A more accurate comparison would be to compare the numbers of breast feeding mothers against those formula feeding mothers that have made the same choices for work hours.

Very true, after 6 months of working full-time after my baby was born, I requested to work part-time because I was missing so much time with my baby. Therefore, I am one of the mothers who is still making less money years down the road, by my own choice.

Spot on. Another feminist agenda which ultimately sets women back another step. C'mon media, let's keep the divide going, keep the hype alive, feed the hate and resentment!! No wonder nobody respects anybody anymore.

This article confused me, actually. I'm one of those who breastfed each of my three children 14 months each. Not only did I NOT lose income, I received above average pay raises during those times.

I also got to be really creative in my choice of places to pump. Arrive to a meeting 15 minutes early and pump in the car. Borrow an office and pump while taking 15 minutes to answer e-mails. Hook up the pump and actually drive while the pump is doing its thing. Wake up insanely early in the morning so I can squeeze in one more pump session before starting my work day. Use my lunch break to pump.

The study sounds more like women are CHOOSING to sacrifice their professional lives while pumping. That is a fine choice, but it is still a choice. I did not see anything showing that employers were discriminating against breastfeeding mamas.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends a *minimum* of six months of breast-feeding to improve the health of the child.

If women in this study are able to drop 5 hrs / week on average to coincide with a pregnancy, they're not in a salaried position. If shorter work weeks persist for five years after a child is born, that reflects a woman's choice to work fewer hours after a baby is born.

Perhaps the article should be titled : "Gender Wage Gap is Due to Women's Choice to Shorten the Work Weeks, Not Sexual Discrimination"

Basically, they are insinuating that breast feeding makes a woman stupid or incompetent.

No, they are saying that choosing to breastfeed costs women income, and that there should be more legislation so that women who want to breastfeed can do so without financial penalty. Because breastfeeding is important. Did none of you people actually bother to read this article to the end?

Vincent: you have no evidence whatsoever that this only works for those not in a salaried position. In fact, you'd find a pretty high correlation between salaried positions and those companies providing 15 minutes at a time for breast feeding. You are making a very old tired argument: there is no benefit to society whatsoever if women breastfeed their infants while working? Hopefully, you are NOT in an executive position in your organization?

Serious question (and this is not anti-woman), I want to know what you think about this: how much of what you wrote is the end result of the modern feminist movement? Not trolling or flaming, and no wrong answer; just seeking Kallie's opinion.

I think Feminism is a good thing, but I have one, major, glaring issue with it:

Feminism only seeks to equalize males and females where females are at the disadvantage, but not the other way around.

Feminism really should be trying to change the culture that masculine things are better than feminine things.

A woman is applauded for breaking out of her gender role and taking up a career. A man is not treated the same if he wishes to stay at home and raise the kids.

Not to mention marriage and divorce laws, as well as child custody. are all skewed towards women. Women are rewarded through alimony when they give up their careers to stay at home, yet men are punished when they work to provide for their family by not getting primary custody of their children after a divorce because they're not the primary care givers.

Modern feminists really need to stop focusing on individual issues such as this, and work on shifting the culture to something that views both masculine and feminine activities as being equal.

Do that, and the rest of these things will disappear.

It posted my post twice.

Feminists did not create the perception that "masculine things are better than feminine things." That is the attitude they have been fighting all this time.

Remember those happy times when women did not have the vote and were basically property? That changed because women made it happen. You want them to also take up the cause of men's rights? That will happen about the time when men take up the cause of women's rights. For instance, I can picture a time when men will not feel the need to post about how hard it is to be a guy on an article about the disadvantages women face if they want to breastfeed their babies.

But that day has not yet come....

From the article: "...and this was true even though most of the women in the long-duration group were managers or professionals and said they worked because they liked to."

Someone who is working because they like to, instead of primarily because they need the income, is probably more likely to settle for less pay than someone who needs the income.

Really they needed to look at whether or not a woman's PER HOUR earnings go down as a result of breastfeeding. Otherwise, working fewer hours (many women change to part time once they have kids) would skew the results.

Breastfeeding does take a lot of time and effort though. You have to spend an hour a day at work pumping. You can't just choose to do it at home, it has to be done every few hours.

I seriously doubt that these women were told they are getting a pay cut due to breastfeeding. The only job that makes sense is in sales, where you have less time to dedicate to making commissions.

ithinkiknow - wow, you could pump & drive? I hated pumping and did it as little as possible, but I had a good friend who could manage to hold a phone conference while pumping. But pumping while commuting is seriously going the distance! You have lucky, lucky children--cheers to you!

I'm glad you were so dedicated. However, let's hope you didn't endanger other children riding on the road when you were pumping and driving. I think that counts as distracted driving if you had sideswiped someone and killed a family of 5.

good lord Tori, do you ever eat or drink while driving? I hope you don't wipe out a family of 5 too. What a horrible thing to insinuate, and its destructive here in this conversation to helping women balance pumping and working. Pumping in the car is a viable, safe option that makes it EASIER to be a BFing mom and work. They make the pumping bra that holds the horns so its hands free. You just shut the pump off when you are done and leave the horns alone till you hit a light, or reached work/home. No more danger to society than changing the radio, less so than someone eating or drinking.

Tori, I pumped and drove too. It works exactly as ithinkiknow described. You are parked when hooking up the pump paraphernalia and never have to touch it while you are actually driving.

I was probably safer driving hooked up to my pump than I am now that I have to deal with bickering kids in my backseat. ;)

Ummm. No. I don't eat or drink while driving. What if something comes unhooked? Or is that not possible?

No, that isn't why they make the car charger. You are lucky you didn't have an accident. Of course I am happy that you were able to pump all that time and totally support pumping and breastfeeding, but it is for you to sit and pump while you aren't driving or while someone else drives. No, it wasn't made for that at all. I'm glad you guys didn't hurt yourselves or someone else.

Rob, apparently you are a male. That puts your relevance very low.

If you are a white male, you are almost totally irrelevant.

As a WASP male, after forty years of being blamed for all of society's problems, I'm more than happy to be irrelevant.

You say "When my 3 boys were dumped in my lap.." I'm sure your 3 boys will appreciate hearing or reading that when they grow older that apparently they were dumped in your lap when they were BORN. They are YOUR children. You created them with those testicles. Children aren't just dumped in your lap. If you didn't want them "dumped in your lap" you should have "kept it in your pants" or used birth control. However, that is not the issue here. The article pertains to breastfeeding. I hope you are able to get assistance for the sake of those boys that you have.

Tori please, would you say this to a single mom?: "I'm sure your 3 boys will appreciate hearing or reading that when they grow older that apparently they were dumped in your lap [when the father left you alone to raise them] when they were BORN. They are YOUR children. You created them with those ovaries. Children aren't just dumped in your lap. If you didn't want them "dumped in your lap" you should have "kept an asprin between your knees" or used birth control, or aborted them." Grow up.

Regrettably, yeah, guys get the short stick in social issues. Even when our lives are on the line. Women have the SGK Foundation pumping money up their butts right and left when they get breast cancer, but men are left for dead when we show up with it, because they've got it all tied up on the gender line.

As a father in a family with both parents, I can assure you that dads are 3rd class citizens. Kids first, pets 2nd, Mom 3rd, and Dad gets a card once a year. Also, whenever there is a dispute, American society always sides first with mothers. Getting divorced?...Dad, you're screwed.

Of course, in my life, no one is disposable and I have never been on the dole for anything. Instead of unemployment, I always just get another job. I'd work 3 if I had to, to feed my family. I'd bag groceries or shovel S-, and be proud to - I'd work my A- off.

This country's turned into a bunch of friggin' complainers and whiners and me-firsters. Bunch of worthless sacks.

Factchecker. You are the one that needs to grow up. As it stands, this was a FATHER saying this. If it had been a mother, I would also say it. It is true that no child is ever dumped in a parent's lap. There is always the chance of divorce, single parenthood or whatever the case may be. So yes, to all people of the human race. Do not have sex or make sure to use reliable birth control if you don't want children. But no child should ever have their parents referred to them as being dumped in their laps.

Or are you one of those men that don't believe in the term "it takes two to tango?"

It is a euphemism, and not a particularly offensive one at that. The kids could have been "dumped in his lap" even though he loves them greatly. If anything, it should offend the mother since she is the active "dumper" in that sentence, abdicating her maternal responsibilities. Raising kids takes work. Work that is "dumped in your lap" when one parent leaves. Dial down your sensitivity meter. In the real world, people realize that children require work, and aren't afraid to say that anonymously on a message board. So, drop your hypothetical outrage at a non-offensive comment that was never even made to the children and, yes, grow up.

Or, maybe you need a midol? (you can be offended at that one instead if you like)

You certainly should been entitled to a leave of compassion. Your command should have been helping you -- they sound like jerks. Guys are eligible for food stamps, it's all about income, so I'm puzzled as to why you wouldn't get them. According to the WIC eligibility calculator, your kids would have all been eligible for WIC, so there again, not sure why they wouldn't have been, just because you were a single dad. As to why you yourself wouldn't have been eligible -- well, it is for pregnant or nursing mothers, who need extra nutrition. I'm looking at the rules now, of course, not 9 years ago, maybe eligibility requirements have changed for the better!

I'm sorry that MSNBC does not run more single dad stories, it could have to do with numbers; 84% of all single parent households are headed up by women. It does seem, though, that you could perhaps just not click on these stories, if they distress you. Or try a different news website.

No, the rules have not changed. He is just a guy who figured he could make babies without having to care for them! AND who would prefer to whine than investigate the assistance to which he may be entitled!

LessThan99%, The study is not invalid, and this is the point they are making: If you stay at home to breastfeed, you are going to earn less. Only in this twisted Capitalist society does it follow that this trade off is somehow not worth it. If money is of higher concern than your child, then this study will resonate positively with you, and you will feel justified about abandoning your child in favour of work to earn a few dollars more.

Another person who did not actually read this article to the end. If you had, you would have read that the study authors are not advocating that women not breastfeed, rather they are saying that there needs to be legislation to address the problems women face, of earning less due to breastfeeding. Because breastfeeding is too important to give up on.

If you take significant time off from work for any reason, it is logical that you will be perceived as less reliable, less promotable, and will miss out on raises while you are gone because you weren't there to earn them. It's not fair to the people who actually show up and work every day to give the same raises and promotions they earn to the people who work significantly fewer hours and take months off at a time.

Imagine two people with the exact same qualifications are hired at the same salary on the same day. Over the next five years, one of them works 50+ hour weeks and the other has takes six months off every other year and then comes back at 35 hours per week. Which one has earned more in salary, raises, and promotions?

My husband and I deliberately chose to buy a very modest home in the land of McMansions precisely so that I could stay home with our son. We also own second hand cars, only took very modest vacations for years, if we did at all, and did without a lot of material stuff for a long time.

Our son is 11 now and I still don't work full time. He is a very happy child who does great in school, has lots of friends and plays a lot of sports. I have time to cook great meals for my family, I can help my son with all of his school projects, I can run him around to all of his activities, and just enjoy being his mom. We still live in the same modest house - and we're fine with it. I wouldn't trade these years for anything.

Statistics is a double-edged sword, and more often, both edges are used by a fool to paint a picture that either gets them noticed, or more money to paint more inaccurate pictures.

Nurturing your child, spending more time with them than a working parent - these are good things. But I can also show at least one example, ours, where both parents worked, the children were not breast fed over any great length of time, the kids spent time in day care, etc - and yet, the three grown adults that are our children are phenomenal human beings.

Two in college & one in Navy Spec Ops; and each gets along with the other and loves to laugh and learn and have adventures...We have never raised a hand to any of our children and we don't problem solve by trying to dominate the argument by yelling.

There is no "right way" - unless perhaps it is "do unto others as you would have them done to you".

While I commend you on your sacrifices, understand that this is not the only way to raise successful children. Both my sons went to daycare at a young age so I could go back to work and you know what? They are very happy children, who do well in school, have lots of friend,s and play in lots of sports. Even with my full time job I still have time to cook them great and healthy meals and help with school projects. I still manage to get them to their activities too! I also greatly enjoy being their mom and they know it by the quality time I spend with them each day. And by the way, my children were formula fed by choice so my husband could participate in their care as newborns. Again, everyone has the right to choose what works for them and keeps their kids happy and healthy.

There really are other ways to raise happy, healthy children than just staying home with them.

I'm not saying that there is only one way to raise your children - but I honestly don't see the point of having kids if you are going to pay someone else to raise them. And I would also argue that people who raise successful kids who spent a good part of their formative years in daycare, did so in SPITE of the daycare, not BECAUSE of it. I understand that not everyone can stay home to raise their kids - but again. no one is going to tell me that it's BETTER for kids to be in daycare than it is to be with a parent. Especially if they have the opportunity to attend a quality pre-school a few hours a week

Right-e-o Hayden...and grillcheese. The point being that either way and certainly others are perfectly valid.

I think the real ingredient in happy children is happy parents; so your context is relevant, to you. Raise your children like you think you should and as best you can. Love them like a rock. Never lie to them (not once). Forgive them in all things. Support them in all things. Everything will work out fine...

Charlton, I wish I could vote this up 100 times.

Why should women have to be financially shortchanged if they have children? Why is that a somehow a noble thing? Notice that this only applies to women, too; men don't make less money if they have kids. Should we make sure dads get paid less and passed over for promotion also, or is it only moms who have to get it in the neck? Here's a thought; how about if this country actually supported families by making sure that employers supported them.

"Kallie, there is nothing with children spending most of the day in the daycare."

There is no way that anyone is going to tell me that a child is better off spending the bulk of their day in daycare than at home. That's just what people say to make themselves feel better about doing that to their kids.

Do kids benefit from a few hours a week of attending a quality pre-school? Sure they do. There's world of difference between those two things.

Matt, if you're gonna breed only to pawn off your spawn onto others for its child-rearing needs, you gotta aks yourself....what's the point of breeding? You're better off getting a dog instead.

My child is seeing a model of two parents pursuing their career passions. He gets plenty of attention, and is going to a caring daycare where he gets to play with kids from a variety of races and socioeconomic backgrounds. As a mother, my career is just as valued as my husband's. I pumped breastmilk for 7 months after I went back to work. I chose to pump because it is cheaper and more nutritious than formula, but when I learned my son was lactose intolerant I switched him to formula.

I chose to do all of these things. THAT'S feminism. Don't you dare tell people that using daycare makes them bad parents. I am a very loving mother.

Feminism is having equal opportunity to do whatever you want with your life. It's about respecting everyone's decisions.

I am right there with you! My kids went to daycare and are very well adjusted. Additionally, it does not make me a "bad" mother... My kids are very, very loved and happy!

Matt: apparently your mother didn't breastfeed you. There's no other explanation.

Totally agree! I have been breastfeeding for over a year now. Breast milk is a far superior food source for babies and provides them with health benefits that formula never could. I do not care about the so called cost of breastfeeding. Nothing is worth more to me than my child's health. I work from home so I actually save a lot of money breastfeeding. My income has not changed. And I save on formula and daycare.

I couldn't agree more. There is simply no replacement for breastfeeding. I think the conclusion of the article steers in the direction of balance but the problem is most people won't bother to read until the end. Soundbites are turning us into a nation of dummies...literally.

Good call. Matt's funny because he's so dumb and yet there's always someone to grab the bait and fight like Hell. Sad, but there's always a Matt in the crowd - dumb as a box of hammers and yet convinced of their brilliance; and there's always someone who will take them seriously.

Maybe that's the saddest part - that we have to take such people seriously. Or else...

I agree. Total garbage feminism. Telling women they can't do something is ANTI-feminist. You can pump and work. And you have a legal right to do so.

I wonder where these careers end up in the long run. I bet the finances all levels out eventually.

That last line in the article is not a conclusion. It is such a "DUH" statement, it doesn't even belong in any thoughtful, intellectual analysis. They provide grants and give degrees for such nonsense?

Women shouldn't raise their children alone. What a revelation. That's right up there with, "a single parent can raise a great child, so there's nothing wrong with being a single parent." What a stupid conclusion!!!

Where did I say to raise children alone?

MomGrandma, I was agreeing with you; and, extrapolating...

No need for defense.

There should be strong support when you decide to have and in the raising of your children. It's a great responsibility.

THANK YOU for saying this. Someone else made a similar comment on this article too. I'm a single mom of 2 boys who works full time and still manages to participate in field trips and activities. I also pick my sons up from school everyday (and drop them off every morning), cook, clean (when time allows...LOL) and manage a household all while paying bills and finding time for sleep. I had 1 breastfed baby and 1 formula fed baby, both of which are healthy well adjusted per-teens now. And guess what? I did this ALL BY MYSELF. I am SO tired of feeling like "less than a mother" because I work. SO tired of hearing BFing women talk about FFing women like they are trash. Guess what? How we choose to feed and raise our kids is OUR choice. Period. Kudos to you for making the right choices for your family. If more people minded their own business and paid more attention to their own lives....the world would be a better place.

The key here is getting the support from your spouse when making the decision to either stay home or work while breastfeeding. I worked with a woman who was pumping while working full time. She was tired, fretted over not being with her little girl while strangers minded her two children. Ironically, I ran into her husband when my son and I were at the park...he was with another woman.

Even though I didn't get support from my spouse, I decided to stay home while nursing.

Grandma - you need to get out more. First, do not lump all working moms in the group that are tired and "fretted" while their husbands are frolicking with others.

Second - no working mother dumps off her kids with strangers. If that is your reasoning, then you are equally as guilty for dumping your kids off with strangers when you took them to elementary school. After all - it's highly UNLIKELY you knew the ins and outs of every single teacher from Kindergarten to 12th grade. And, if your kids went to college - how dare you dump them off in a strange city with "strangers" - i.e. their classmates and their professors.

Dear dallas: I said 'she', not me, fretted as a Mom who, obviously, would have preferred staying home with her children while nursing one of them. Meanwhile, the bum she married was having an affair.

I condemned no one for their decisions, only said that the spouse should be supportive of Mom's decision.

Also, we are talking about infants and toddlers. A lot of nipping on this site.

WHAT'S UNFAIR acethestace? That you weren't capable of fulfilling your work duties due to your poor decision to breed and that the smart, single girl with no kids got promoted? What's unfair? That your employer was hesitant to trust you again, lest you ended up knocked up and on bedrest again....on THEIR dime?

Sounds more like the unfairness came entirely from your part. You shortchanged yourself AND your employers. THEY noticed. Part of making poor decisions in life is dealing with the consequences.

Jenny's right when she disputes your opinion that your circumstance was unfair. It was not unfair - the company is moving forward and does not benefit from employees who have to be close to their doctors.

Of course, Jenny also seems like a completely self-centered, egotistical idiot; so, ignore her vitriol & be glad we all live in a world where Jenny is not influencing young people. At least I hope she's not...

Ace, sorry you had to deal with a bed rest pregnancy; but your employers reaction and the single girl moving up are not unfair, it is very fair. They have a need, you were unable to fill it, they filled it with someone else. had you lost your job, that would have been unfair. Now, Jenny, I think is going too far. She's putting you down and insulting you, which is unfair. No need for that.

We all make decisions, and have a responsibility to think them through and foresee the consequences. And we have to live with the ramifications. I don't think becoming a parent is ever a poor decision, it is one sure way to ensure the world will go on.

Gotta disagree with your last point Pittsboy - there a millions of people who SHOULD NOT REPRODUCE. The world does not need human reproduction to carry on, and mankind's population as reached a critical mass of growth that can only be slowed by an Armageddon type circumstance. Man is on a collision course with his own demise, but that is not the point.

People reproduce all the time without any thought, preparation, or desire. This world is full of children that their parents resent them, ignore them, hate them, kill them, etc. If you don't want children, then please take steps to not have any. You, we, and they are better off...

Jenny-1680959, having kids and choosing to breast feed is not a "poor decision." It is a choice. Your choice was not to have kids, and given your tone and attitude towards the responsibilities and struggles of parenting you made the right choice for yourself, and let me say I am grateful you made that choice.

Our society is not set up to help the woman who CHOOSES to have children and give them the benefit of breastfeeding (if we can or choose) and, moreso, stay home to care for them (if we can or choose). Other societies recognize this role and how it benefits not only the child but society at large (because those kids eventually grow up). Many women would like to have the best of both worlds, but one inevitably suffers or has to get put on hold. Can't put raising your kids on hold, so for that many women suffer the consequences of decreased career opportunities and/or salary. It is the sacrifice we make for the love of our children, of which there is no greater. (really, truly, the love we have for our kids is pretty intense).

Because women sacrifice in this way, we often lament the lost opportunities. This doesn't mean we made a poor decision to breed, it means, as with many other aspects of life where there is some compromise, that we have simply prioritized what's important and are processing that choice.

You state the obvious. Most successful working moms I know scale back their careers with flex time, reduced hours, etc... so they can be more available for their children. What is "duh" is assuming women cannot successfully do both - that assumption usually comes from those not capable of doing both.

As someone who is doing it, I respectfully disagree.

"you cannot give 100% to both parenting and career, something's gotta give"

If only self-righteous, narrow, sanctimonious lectures solved any of the world's problems. Alas, they don't. Millions of women do give their all to both parenting and careers. All it takes is some pre-planning and a little brainpower.

Tracy, If I could like your post 100 times, I would! You are right on!!!!! Anything is doable with a little thought and a lot of action!

Oh please, when my children were young, THEY were my career. I didn't hire someone to do it for me. I didn't need the "career world" dictating my value to me. I knew what I was doing mattered. When they went to school, I went to work part time. When they got older, I went full time. I chose a very marketable career in college, because I wanted the flexibility to jump out of it for a while. My husband makes the big bucks-- so I chose not to short change my kids. I had a supervisor a few years back-- my age, my degree-- who never had kids... Yeah, she made more than me... no brainer. It was about the choices we made.

Good on you Jenny. From my side, as the father of three grown adults, I do confess that the sacrifices required have been all-consuming. I have no large pile of money, I do not come and go as I please, and there are many items on my life list still to be accomplished.

Most of my siblings (1 of 6) chose not to have kids, and they can do whatever they want, whenever.

These are choices, and if you are happy with your choices , then good for you.

For my part, I cannot imagine a world that doesn't have the three people who also happen to be my children in it. They are amazing people, and my family is by far and away the most important aspect of my entire existence. My legacy is my children.

What I want doesn't matter. I am not I, I am WE. Some folks are like me, and some folks are like you, and so it goes...

I agree it is a smart decision for you to not have kids, otherwise we'd have more self centered childish bores in the world. Or they would be total brats due to your lack of love and parenting.

And my children are already sick of the idea that they're going to be paying for your senior benefits in old age.

There are so many positive things that can be done for a child- that some parents do and others do not. I truly don't understand why people think so much about breastfeeding- why not focus more on making sure kids have adequate sleep, reading to them, talking to them one-on-one, disciplining them....etc. Maybe breastfeeding is hyped up purposely by the formula companies or because some people think it is shocking in some way.

Also, I find the low scientific credibility of most of these parenting studies to be insulting- the "scientists" who conduct them and the news companies that publicize them must assume that parents know nothing about statistics. This one's big conclusion, following their analysis of a small number of cases, is that mothers make less money if they breastfeed? How could that possibly be worth studying. If someone is breastfeeding or pumping, of course they are going to have less time to work.... ridiculous.

if someone cleaned their bathrooms 4 times a day, they would probably have less time to make money, too.... study something that could actually help someone- get a life.

Uh, Matt. Breast milk contains ALL the nutrients a baby needs regardless of whether the mother has a balanced diet. That is a FACT. Breast milk is tailored for the baby's developmental needs, that is also a FACT. Breast milk is not measured out in a bottle so the baby eats as much or as little as it wants to, that is also a FACT. Breast milk contains essential hormones that formula doesn't and can help prevent a host of later health issues, that is also a FACT. Granted, if your child has food allergies, the mother can't eat those foods while nursing since the proteins from those foods will get into the breast milk but (contrary to popular belief) breast milk has no lactose so even a lactose intolerant baby can eat breast milk as long as the mother is not drinking milk.

There have been quite a few scientific studies to show that in EVERY way, breast milk is better for a baby than formula. That is FACT. The only supplement that babies who are nursed MIGHT need is Vitamin D if they don't get enough time outside to absorb it for themselves. Breast milk contains DHA and has EVERYTHING ELSE that a growing infant needs.

Now, I'm not going to demonize those mothers who can't or don't nurse for whatever reason. Some babies lack a sufficient suck, some mothers have anatomy that is incompatible, some mothers need to be on medications which could pass into the milk. As long as they feed their babies, it's up to them what method they choose. But formula really IS just "acceptable" in terms of infant nutrition. Not "better" and certainly not "best". Formula can't adjust itself to a growth spurt that changes a baby's needs. Formula feeding can be compromised by poor water or poor sanitation of the bottles.

I nursed my son for 15 1/2 months, until I decided I needed to go back on the medications that keep my chronic illnesses at bay. My child has had fewer colds in the 5 years he's been alive than most formula babies have in the first YEAR. His pediatrician has called him "disgustingly healthy". I faced disapproval from my MIL (who formula fed her two sons) for nursing my child - maybe because she tried to with my husband and couldn't.

As for pediatricians who advise a woman to switch to formula for failure to thrive ... are you aware that for a generation, the formula manufacturing companies have lobbied doctors and the government to DISCOURAGE breast feeding so that they could make money? Are you aware that some doctors who were trained during that period of time never bothered to keep up with current medical training? Are you also aware that some women simply do not produce ENOUGH milk so they are told to supplement and it has NOTHING to do with the nutritional content of breast milk and nothing to do with their diet? So much for your argument.

Matt, ALL formula has a statement on the container saying that breast milk is superior.

However, many mothers choose to formula feed for many different reasons. So they always phrase it as "breast milk is nutritionally superior" rather than "formula is nutritionally inferior."

Matt, breast milk is superior. This is no research that doesn't confirm that. It's not the issue here.

Matt--the reason the doctor is asking if you are breast feeding is not because any formula is better, but breast feeders are too busy in life, even home going moms caught up on FB, and yes the milk is containing more variaty than any type of man made "industrial" baby milk--especially the hormones, and the antibodies,--Remember I have been to all the Baby milk factories over the last 40 years (in the lab). But breast feeding does involve that mom is not on a diet to loose those baby fatty tires around the middle too early, and then the blood-/-to milk becomes lower in everything including protein and Lactose.--never mind the fat.--same with the cows and mice-horses-- sheep--etc, I have tested for 30- 40 things in all of them down to microbes.--Yes, it was not easy to milk a mouse, but USDA wants to know what is in mouse milk for several reasons, and also for cancer research to be converted to people.! Like mice, horses,sheep always nurse, so we almost never see cancer in them, but in cows not "nursing" for some reason--they get it too!