Impact of breast milk on IQ, brain size and white matter development (2010)
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
1. Small sample sizes.
2. Significance was only found in one subset of the population. Given enough ways to divide up groups of people, you will almost always get false positives.
3. Not an experimental design.
4. The study did not control for simple factors like income or the health of the parent.
That is not fair. You're making it sound like it's a JS framework.
Seven years is nothing in this case.
A single data point isn't science. It -might- be news, if it was a super recent data point (though, obviously, requires peer review and replication). This is neither.
I'm not familiar with the research here so I can't say either way. But a preliminary google scholar search turned up a lot of articles which seem to suggest that breastfeeding has a bunch of positive impacts on numerous intelligence and general well-being metrics.
The article itself has been cited 209 times according to google scholar [1], and this study [2] (cited 400+ some odd times) seems to accept some of the propositions made in this paper as givens.
Anyway, I think it would have been interesting if the null hypotheses here weren't rejected. I kind of expect evolution to have optimized human breastmilk over alternatives for infant development.
1. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1509419575151008169... 2. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/129/3/e827.sho...
I realize that repeat studies are important generally in science. But, many studies (particularly health related) seem to have such a result built into their design. If you get a result, it will just be preliminary and require a larger sample study moving on.
Is there a mechanism in science for actually taking these preliminary results and validating/falsifying them more conclusively? Does a result like this make a larger scale study this team's top priority for the next study? Will these results convince another team to do the full study?
Otherwise, it feels like there's something structurally wrong. If the study is designed as a non-conclusive prototype or framework, what's the point unless it leads to other studies?
I'm also not sure what you mean by #3.
Since the mothers self-selected breastfeeding, the study makes the assumption that banked breast milk (from a random donor) is equivalent to fresh milk from the mother.
It assumes that the act of suckling on the mother's breast has no bearing on brain development. See recent evidence regard pre-term babies and skin contact: http://handtohold.org/resources/helpful-articles/the-benefit...
Finally, it ignores other (more recent) studies showing how the mother's milk reacts to signals from the baby's saliva (backwash from baby sucked back into breast). https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/growth-curve/backwash-nursi...
(Not saying these links aren't equally or more flawed, but it's avenues of causation ignored.)
Wouldn't a valid study require randomized instruction to mothers about whether to breastfeed? Is that ethical? Compliance is equally tough: breastfeeding can be incredibly difficult for some moms/babies. Further, couldn't the difficulty in breastfeeding also be correlated to the effects -- could children reject breastmilk based on the mother's health or otherwise based on the "quality" of the milk?
Please forgive if I'm asking questions that are well understood -- by no means am I claiming to be knowledgeable in this field. But I do have kids and went through hell with one of them on this, so I'm very interested in the research.
Because it's my understanding that the evidence shows a breastmilk->IQ correlation as well as all the other health benefits [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breastfeeding#Baby]
It would be much more useful to talk about the statistical significance in more quantitative terms.
(Compare to, say, the advice to have infants sleep on their backs to prevent SIDS, or the HPV vaccine, which have clear and measurable health impacts at a population level.)
This matters because breastfeeding has costs that tend to be ignored. Just from personal experience, it pushes disproportionate work onto my wife in a way that's hard to correct for and detracts from parenting. And given that she's working full time, it's also a huge investment of resources -- if you take her work time into account, we're spending tens or hundreds of dollars a day for this. And many women get injuries and infections, soldiering through months of agony for that health benefit that may or may not exist.
Setting aside the health of the parents (and we shouldn't, that's an easy trap), breastfeeding uses a lot of resources that could go toward other interventions for the child. Maybe it's all worth it? But I wish there was a better conversation about the tradeoffs.
>WHO can now say with full confidence that breastfeeding reduces child mortality and has health benefits that extend into adulthood. On a population basis, exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life is the recommended way of feeding infants, followed by continued breastfeeding with appropriate complementary foods for up to two years or beyond.
http://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/topics/newborn/...
In the 1960s, Nestle started pushing formula hard in developing countries in Africa. And by "pushing," I mean they hired people to dress as nurses and tell women that they should use formula because it was healthier than breast milk. They also gave women free samples, knowing that if they used the samples in the beginning, the women would have a hard time getting their milk to come in later, "hooking" them on the formula.
What made it worse is that the formula was very, very expensive to these people, and often didn't have any instructions printed in a language the mother could read (assuming they were even literate in any language), causing the formula to be routinely under-dosed. Oh, and they often didn't have access to safe drinking water, which is kind of important for formula.
We don't know how many babies died because of Nestle's actions, but it was probably in the millions.
This led to the huge Nestle formula boycott of the 70s. The WHO started pushing breast feeding hard, and created a whole panel to do it, made up of breast-feeding advocates who viewed it as a kind of panacea. That wouldn't have been a problem normally because strong believers in breastfeeding were probably needed to counteract the corporate push towards formula, but there was a big complication: AIDS. In 1981 the first cases of HIV transmission by breast milk were reported, and by the mid-80s, doctors knew for certain that HIV could be transmitted by breast feeding. But the breast-feeding advocates in the WHO wouldn't accept the facts. Even in the 90s the WHO was "debunking" that "myth" in their literature to third-world mothers.
We don't know how many babies died because the WHO told HIV-positive mothers that they should breast feed, but it was probably in the millions.
To this day, the WHO promotes breast-feeding heavily (which is fine, they should) but they play up the benefits of it more than is really scientifically defensible. Their breastfeeding outreach isn't run by impartial people, but by true-believers in the power of breastfeeding. So take their info with a grain of salt.
Women who can afford to breastfeed exclusively are at least middle class, usually upper-middle class. That comes with a whole set of advantages and other correlations. Studies that try to figure out breast feeding advantages have to try and control for these things, but it's hard.
Here's what we know for sure: Breast feeding reduces infections in the child. It's a small, but detectable amount. And I do mean a small amount. Between six mothers that exclusively breast feed an infant for six months, on average one of those children will have one fewer infection during that time.
Everything else is up in the air, and if it has an effect on anything else (like intelligence) it's tiny. Save your energy for reading to the child and playing games with them, which definitely helps intelligence.
This is highly country sensitive. In countries with civilized parents leave everyone can afford to breast feed their children.
We did teach our kid "more", which was useful.
In my opinion, it's mostly useful because it's super cute. Typically kids who can sign 'milk' or 'more' can also indicate with grunts, grabs and reaching what the problem is. But it's super cute.
Turned out super useful since she was a late talker
Are you sure? It was my understanding that there is pretty much no intervention that provably increases IQ. Some interventions have small effects for several years but none persist past 3-4 years post intervention.
- Except getting rid of things that low IQ, like reducing exposure to lead, not drinking or smoking while pregnant etc...
Also, side note, IQ is garbage and not a good measure of intelligence.
But the first born effect could be parental bandwidth but it could also be other effects. Age of parent, interactions between siblings, etc...
I guess I'm all for it? But compared to when our kids were born, it was jarring.
Moreover this study, plus others, have suggested a strong relation on IQ and breastfeeding (this study 8 IQ points, one cited by 23-and-me is 7 points per copy of a certain gene 0-14 points).
From a 2017 study:
> RESULTS: Before matching, breastfeeding was associated with better development on almost every outcome. After matching and adjustment for multiple testing, only 1 of the 13 outcomes remained statistically significant: children’s hyperactivity (difference score, –0.84; 95% confidence interval, –1.33 to –0.35) at age 3 years for children who were breastfed for at least 6 months. No statistically significant differences were observed postmatching on any outcome at age 5 years.
It is extremely difficult to perform good studies about breastfeeding in the U.S., because breastfeeding rates are highly correlated with other factors. For example over 90% of babies in California are ever breastfed. That figure is around 60% in West Virginia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Breast feeding rates also vary dramatically by race (black mothers are far less likely to breastfeed). Breastfeeding rates are also much lower among younger mothers and single mothers. So it's very easy to design a study that shows nothing more than that kids of wealthier, white married couples tend to be healthier.
See my other response.
Deciding to bottle feed made life way easier. My wife has trouble getting to sleep, while I can fall asleep in economy class on a 90 minute flight even before taking off. Our daughter woke up every 3 hours like clockwork for more than a year. My wife would've gone crazy if she was the one who was charged with feedings.
Medical professionals are socialized to always err on the safe side. No doctor or nurse ever got fired for scheduling an MRI or CAT scan "just to be safe." They approach breastfeeding the same way--the studies are inconclusive, so just do it to be safe.
[1] Like every engineer, I feel totally qualified to opine on scientific studies regardless of the field.
For the first six weeks, even if the baby was sleeping, I had to pump every 2-3 hours, which means 5 min setup/teardown+15 minutes pumping so only sleeping 1.5 hours sometimes. I was screwed if the baby woke up right after I go to sleep after pumping no matter what my partner was doing, unless I wanted to sleep multiple rooms away with earplugs. It wasn't until 3-4 months that I could go 8 hours in the night without affecting my supply (some lactating folks are not lucky on this front). I still wake up drenched in milk since it's a bit longer than recommended. Better than crying over spilling 3oz of milk all over myself because I fell asleep while pumping though...plus my poor nipples at that point.
Right now several months out, I have to lug all my pumping gear around if I am out for more than 3-4 hours. I also have to plan out my schedule to make sure I can pump at all. So many days I've sat in Bay Bridge traffic in my car and people in cars next to me double taking. People think that pumping in bathrooms is logical even though it is disgusting af and there is nowhere to sit. Lots of people dish out judgment about pumping vs breast or think I'm feeding formula and just pile it on. Thankfully I am doing a combination of SAHP and WFH so I don't have to deal with judgmental bullshit about not being as productive while pumping (20 minutes x 5-6 times a day right now). I'm pumping right now ;)
Pumping is not some easy replacement for the breast and doesn't make it any easier on the lactating parent. I really regret we couldn't get bfing at the breast to work and that I had a traumatic delivery so lactating in the first place wasn't a guarantee, this is what I have to deal with.
> Conclusions Much of the reported effect of breastfeeding on child neurodevelopment is due to confounding. It is unlikely that additional work will change the current synthesis. Future studies should attempt to rigorously control for all important confounders. Alternatively, study designs using sibling cohorts discordant for breastfeeding may yield more robust conclusions.
See also: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/03/...
> RESULTS: Before matching, breastfeeding was associated with better development on almost every outcome. After matching and adjustment for multiple testing, only 1 of the 13 outcomes remained statistically significant: children’s hyperactivity (difference score, –0.84; 95% confidence interval, –1.33 to –0.35) at age 3 years for children who were breastfed for at least 6 months. No statistically significant differences were observed postmatching on any outcome at age 5 years.
The linked study also yields some odd results:
> In the total group %EBM correlated significantly with Verbal IQ (VIQ); in boys, with all IQ scores, TBV and WMV. VIQ was, in turn, correlated with WMV and, in boys only, additionally with TBV. No significant relationships were seen in girls or with grey matter.
A meta-study that adjusted for maternal IQ only (but not socioeconomic status, which independently correlates with higher rates of breastfeeding) found a very small effect on IQ: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26211556
> We included 17 studies with 18 estimates of the relationship between breastfeeding and performance in intelligence tests. In a random-effects model, breastfed subjects achieved a higher IQ [mean difference: 3.44 points (95% confidence interval: 2.30; 4.58)]. We found no evidence of publication bias. Studies that controlled for maternal IQ showed a smaller benefit from breastfeeding [mean difference 2.62 points (95% confidence interval: 1.25; 3.98)]. In the meta-regression, none of the study characteristics explained the heterogeneity among the studies.
What is really interesting about this study is that it is based on a a cohort of pre-term babies in randomised and blinded study from the 1980s [1] - where they randomised between formula and donor breast milk. You can read the conclusions easily from the link, but essentially the donor breast milk fed babies did far worse than the formula fed ones, both overall and in subset analysis. Their conclusion is that preterm babies are in need of adequate nutrition, and, reading between the lines, donor breast milk does not provide this.
Where the paper gets confusing is when we start to look at the analysis of the mother's breast milk, which occurred in a follow-up study in the 90s [2]. Of course, this was not randomised, and was parental choice. The 90s paper showed a significantly higher IQ in those fed with mother's breast milk. I say this is confusing because the later papers mention that the trial is randomised (the result of which showed a negative effect for breast milk, albeit donor), while they are actually comparing two groups in an observational study (mother's breast milk vs not).
So actually, we go back to the usual 'can we correct for everything' in an observational study? We should be very cautious drawing conclusions from observational studies - there are nice examples of these studies showing the exact opposite of the randomised study - for example in this trial which set out to show anti-oxidants prevented cancer [3], they managed to show simultaneously that the obversational findings directly contradicted the randomised findings.
A better study is the cluster-randomised study [4] in Belarus, but even this study has many flaws - it was cluster-randomised, those randomised to receive teaching on the benefits of breast milk also received a lot more input and support from their midwives and hospitals in general. There was a significant difference in IQ between groups, though the measurement was not blinded. There was a trend, but no significance in the difference between teachers rating of the groups.
Another study looking at sibling pairs didn't find a difference between siblings who had and hadn't been breastfed - this is still an observational study, but being siblings it controls for a few more things. [5]
Anyway, there are lots of issues in breast-feeding research. Another is comparing 1st to 3rd world, where other issues, particularly infection risk becomes important. Formula milk contains iron, which is pretty important in cognitive development. Breast milk does not contain any. This may have been an evolved mechanism to protect from infections, given that (almost) all infections require ready access to iron, and may explain the increased risk of serious infections in 3rd world countries.
To sum up, I don't personally believe there is good enough evidence to recommend breast feeding over formula feeding. For a parent it should come down to individual situations. Our first child was slightly micrognathic, which made breast feeding very painful. In retrospect we pursued breast feeding for far too long, and it was causing stress in both mother and child, which I doubt is beneficial to psychological health. Our second kid would only take breast and was easy to feed. Our third took breast without a problem, but was left hungry so needed topped up with formula.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1792630/ [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1346280 [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8127329 [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18458209 [5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1633819/
Current status: Breastmilk-IQ relationship inconclusive and hotly contested (Breastmilk-health status understood and strongly favorable)
You provided a link to a meta-study from 2013, but 44 articles cite that article many do not agree.
Source?
So the author cites findings that how-long you breastfeed for or amount of breastfeeding you do has an effect (e.g. once a day vs twice a day) that's a big unexplained phenomenon (which could NOT be explained by maternal IQ, SES, etc).
To quote this author's interpretation of the literature "Although the topic is controversial, and a recent systematic review identified heterogeneity between studies, among the 4 studies with the least bias (each >500 subjects, controlled for maternal IQ, breastfeeding recall duration <3 years) breastfeeding improved performance on IQ testing by 1.76 points (95% confidence interval, 0.25–3.26), suggesting a small but durable impact of breastfeeding on intelligence.10"
(Again 2017, fully aware of the difficulty of controlling [1])
Now does this case-closed prove breastmilk bumps IQ? No, it proves my original claim that this is hotly contested.
1. Breastfeeding: What Do We Know, and Where Do We Go From Here?
It could be explained by maternal IQ and SES, e.g. if higher IQ mothers were more likely to stick to optimal breastfeeding practices.
> Now does this case-closed prove breastmilk bumps IQ? No, it proves my original claim that this is hotly contested.
That may well be true, but the fact that the issue is "hotly contested" after decades of research is telling. If the effect was significant (practically, rather than statistically), you'd expect it to be pretty well established after decades of research. Instead, in properly controlled studies and meta-analyses, even where the effect exists, it is small (1.76 IQ points in your example, 2.62 in a study by Horta).
Emotional bonding between mother and child is a huge factor in breastfeeding -- that's common sense that doesn't require scientific validation, although it would be very interesting to see studies from that perspective.
Citation needed. What's even more possible is that in the long run nature will win -- it is a far more powerful force than intellect.
In the very least, let's see how intellect fares against the heat death of the universe...
Of course, there are probably species that burn through a few generations per hour but these are not really suited to solving problems that mammals can.
For some problems regarding the functioning of living things yes, but for other problems evolution doesn't apply, and nature (aka the universe) can "strike" before science had the time to find anything to protect against them (e.g. a meteor hit).
And for other problems still, science might be the one that created them (e.g. nuclear annihilation, global warming, etc).
>Of course, there are probably species that burn through a few generations per hour but these are not really suited to solving problems that mammals can.
No, but some of them could e.g. mutate and kill all humans or enough to destroy civilization.
But in another sense, intellect vs nature is a useful distinction to make.
(E.g. blind forces of evolution through selection/mutation/etc, vs conscious targeted changes).
Human knowledge in general might, but I'm talking about how humans take action and shape the world around them vs how evolution does.
Conjecture and refutation are not like random mutations -- that's just the "survival of the fittest" part of evolution, which is not the actual mechanism and which applies to everything (after all, anything that survives is fitter that what didn't).
ESTablishing shot: Motorhome parked in remote field.
SUPER: Meanwhile, at the Soylent lab...
If he is employed by Nestlé, yes.
Science is about knowing the details. The hows, whys and how muches.
My point is this -- people can be convinced by "studies" and people in white coats that formula is similar or possibly better than breastmilk (see the last 50 years of medicine before they came back around to recommending breastfeeding). Studies are obviously important, but logic can't be thrown out the window just because a "study" purports to show something -- if you're going to make a counter claim why something like formula is better or even comparable to breastmilk (as scientists and doctors did for A LONG TIME), you have to have an OVERWHELMING amount of evidence, the burden of proof is on you, you basically have to disprove evolution to prove that formula is in any way comparable to breastmilk from a healthy, well-fed mother -- and good luck disproving evolution!
Apart from shared immunity during the first few feeds. Also being better for the babies development.
> definitely formula is better when the mother is malnourished.
In cases where the mother can't afford food it send a little abusive to also try to sell her formula.
The only reason not the breastfeed is if you can't. But it is not as easy as it looks so we should not judge mothers either way.
We tend to care about the individual more than the population, so we treat sick children instead of letting them die. Since nature isn't always helping, maybe natural food isn't always the best option.
I think that the current understanding is that evolution serves the gene, not the population or the individual.
There is some polemic about the gene idea (1), but it seems to me that the discussion is more about semantics, and, that from an information point of view, it's the gene the minimum unit that is "learning" about the environment.
The shape and behaviour of a molecule is depending of the constituent atoms. I suppose, you could express it the other way, but at the end of the day, is the most fundamental units what give us the most useful explanations.
(1) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolutio...
Natural selection can send a specific gene mutation into an immediate dead end, but presumably across all mutations, it's a net positive for the entire population as they become generally better adapted.
But, populations evolve, not individuals, yes.
We don't know what a Zoologist might recommend in 10 years when new results are found from studies like these. That's exactly why studies like this are done, so we all learn.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2684040/
>By the 1940s and 1950s, physicians and consumers regarded the use of formula as a well known, popular, and safe substitute for breastmilk. Consequently, breastfeeding experienced a steady decline until the 1970s (Fomon, 2001)
Why, yes. I'm not a zoologist, but I know giving a replacement milk is the best solution when the mother either is absent for whatever reason, cannot produce milk, or cannot produce enough quality milk. This is why we have milk for infant cats and dogs, actually. Otherwise, the animal would die. There is a similar nutrition for birds (as they don't produce milk) and it is common for folks to buy pigmy goats as an infant and bottle feed them.
Why do humans think they're any different?
We don't. Replacement breast milk saved lives, and these sorts of issues were the original use of infant formula. When applied to current society, it still saves lives and helps to keep folks from financial ruin because some countries (like the US) don't really give mothers time off work to properly breast feed, and it is usually difficult to pump milk at work. At some point while pumping, people usually have to supplement formula as well. As a side note, I was one of the babies that would have died without a wet nurse, as my mother had gall bladder surgery before I was 6 weeks old (fairly major surgery in '78) and could not breast feed.
That's the reason maternity wards have fridges full of donated milk so that at least during the first days/weeks/months of life, especially for those born prematurely, the replacement milk is actual breast milk.
The point about maternity leave is a good one. Obviously countries should have a maternity leave that is longer than the breastfeeding period. That the US doesn't is pretty terrible imho. (This isn't an employer expense in all those countries that have it, it's usually a tax funded system)
Assuming there are absolutely no medical or circumstantial reasons to use formula (such as the complication with work in my original reply and public acceptance of breast feeding in public), there aren't many reasons. You know, except being able to be away from your child for any length of time in the first months. But this simply isn't reality, nor is breast milk always enough (my mother simply couldn't produce enough milk for my little brother to stay healthy, and his asthma was already a concern). Some women die in childbirth as well. Not to mention psychological concerns (I refuse to have a child. Pregnancy and breast feeding are the stuff of nightmares for me). We need the option there just to make sure all babies have nutrition.
And the more folks push, the more acceptable it is to shame non-breastfeeding mothers. That really freaking bothers me.
I've found though that most people push formula more than anything. My partner and I have just had our first baby, she's fully breastfed and barely a day goes by where people ask whether we're supplementing with formula as breast milk does not contain the right or enough nutrition for them.
I side with breast milk first and and foremost if it's a viable option as I'm less inclined to believe large formula manufactures such as Nestle really have the best of interests.
If the baby is purely breast fed and getting enough milk, you have to probably have add some extra iron to their diet around month 6 or so.
We had to start supplementing early, my wife could never get her production up enough to fully feed the baby. Our pediatrician was relieved we were ok with supplementing, a lot of moms in SoCal aren't and it's a super big issue. They (the pediatricians) seem to be at battle with breast feeding ideologues, people really need to be pragmatic.
I think the problem we found with our personal situation was from day one anything that occurred such as baby crying,fussing, not sleeping was attributed directly to poor breast milk by both people we knew and strangers. My partner felt forced to move to formula but luckily with support from our midwife her supply came in well and both baby and mother are happy.
Choices and support are the most important things but if supply,will,health and the option allow a mother to breastfeed I think the benefits do outweigh formula.
Happy to hear you had a supportive paediatrician!
Doctors are pattern matchers, your newborn symptoms could have been in their experience the baby not getting enough milk. If it wasn't the pediatrician, well, they are your best source for the baby's health, everyone else isn't qualified (including nurses, midwives, etc...).
Also, it takes a while for the milk to come in after the baby is born, it is an incredibly tricky process of getting the baby fed where nature doesn't do us many favors. The baby probably was hungry, the milk probably came in later than they wanted, but all is still ok. Finally, you know what goes into baby with formula, with breast milk it is much harder to tell, making the job of determining if the baby is getting enough much more difficult.
Breast feeding has benefits sure, but they aren't so much that it is worth starving the baby. It is a serious tightrope to walk, especially in the first few weeks before production comes in completely (if it does at all, many women have problems).
If you have a colic baby, all bets are off, of course.
Well it would be great to know just if they're different at all. You seem to think it's 'obvious' that breastmilk is always better; I don't see a logical reason to think so, or at least not so strong that it shouldn't be studied.
Yes, the research does show that breastmilk is better. My wife nursed our children until they were 15 and 18 months old, respectively. I'm not some pro-formula-campaigner. But I don't see any reason for naturalistic fallacy-based reasoning, either.
But I have to ask, how is evolution not an "obvious" reason that breastmilk is a superior source of nutrition for baby mammals? Why would every mammal do best on their mother's milk but somehow humans do better on processed junk food powder that didn't exist until 60 years ago?
Your argument seems to revolve around the difference between humans and other mammals, with that I would agree - I don't see a reason it'd be different. But your argument also relies on the assumption that for other mammals the mother's milk is better. That's the whole question to be investigated - is it really so? If so, what is it in breast milk that is better? And once we figure that out, how can we put that into something that can more easily be manufactured and used, so that all women can get the advantages that breast milk provides? It's not like 'nature' is some magical thing that imbues mystical powers on matter. It's all physics and chemistry. We don't understand everything about it, maybe we only understand a tiny part of it; so that's why we have to do the research.
Again without studies it's hard to claim anything.
Obviously, before anyone makes that sacrifice, it makes a lot of sense to study whether it has any corresponding benefits.
We can conclude from these observations that the traditional female gender role isn't all that great, and that there is a lot of value in technology (for now, formula, but soon, artificial wombs) that reduce the need for anyone to do that work.
[1] There is an increased push for paternity leave because dads want to spend more time with their newborns, which is different from wanting to embrace traditional female duties. And a huge part of that push is to set the stage for women to escape their traditional gender role. Dad being more involved from the beginning means that, in the long term, it will be easier for dad and mom to share child-rearing duties. It's harder to do that when, e.g. the child reflexively runs to mom any time it needs something.
I certainly had no problem warming up refrigerated breast milk at odd hours of the night for all three of my children.
I think everyone should pump and freeze. At the very least you'll be more comfortable. The bonus is that you can make your significant other feed the kid!
Do you think most men want to go sit in an office all day doing menial tasks to support their family? Since office work is fairly split evenly by gender, do you think men want to go work on oil rig or construction site all day to support their families?
And judging by the fact that women have rushed into the work force while men have not rushed home, I do think it's fair to say that people would rather be sitting in an office than chasing a toddler around the house.
And because some folks have kids first, then find out how horrible it is. The first child doesn't always seem horrible, so they have another.
And because even happy parents find a lot of the work involved absolutely horrible. I'm not sure if anyone gets joy out of waking in the middle of the night to feed the baby, change an overflowing diaper of shit, and/or deal with spit up and so on. Older children keep doing pretty disgusting things for years to come.
Even jobs taking care of folks are considered low-rung, crappy jobs with horrible pay.
Parenting thoughts from a non-parent - pass.
Edit: Besides, me being childless is exactly why I'm qualified to answer part of this question. I understood that, for most of my life, I had to hope that the birth control methods available to me didn't fail (basically condoms, since I can't tolerate hormonal birth control and couldn't afford to be sterilized, if I could even find a doctor).
Its equivalent to taking relationship advice from the neckbeard down in his mother's basement.
When my kids were born I was kind of shocked at the level of pressure put on my wife to breastfeed. Advocates made formula feeding sound like borderline abuse.
There are many reasons why someone might choose formula feeding (and some reasons are better than others) but the last thing breastfeeding advocates should be doing is making new moms that are on an emotional rollercoaster to begin with, feel like they are a failure and bad mother if they can't or won't breastfeed.
To be more clear, specifically what I am talking about is that I know some women who have chosen not to try because they have heard it is very hard, and maybe some additional facts of its benefits (not just pressure from people that condescend) might have convinced them to try, or convince some women to do it longer. Everybody says it's good, we all know it's good. But nobody likes to do something just because someone else said it's good for them. They want to know why.
People in general are way too picky about what they shove down their gullets. It's just chemicals, and the chemicals in formula are close enough to natural milk that it won't kill fragile human babies. Likewise, the chemicals in Soylent are close enough to food that you can quaff it in lieu of eating.
The only problem is determining which chemicals are actually important, which is somewhat difficult, because yadda yadda yadda unethical human experimentation....
But that wire-mom vs. cloth-mom monkey experiment should also suggest that there's more to breastfeeding than just nutrition.
ask your husband* to suck your nipple then gauge reaction, offer a favorite bottle as an alternative just to be sure.
*results may be vary based on husband iq.