The New York Times and Women

I don't know what's up with Man's Greatest Newspaper and its (female) writers' attitudes towards women. Two articles yesterday, "Breast-Feed or Else" and "The Ascent of a Woman", were typical sensationalist sloppiness from the former Grey Lady. The topic of the first was that public health officials are now going to take a stronger tack in promoting breastfeeding, including putting warning labels on formula.

I agree wholeheartedly with all the reasons for breastfeeding, from infant and maternal health to better bonding--I nursed my first son for a year, and pumped during my three days a week in the office for six months. It's not always easy: I got sick of dragging that pump around, and I had some pain with nursing both times, but it resolved and it's the greatest thing if you stick with it. But here the NYT first quotes a woman who couldn't breastfeed because she "didn't have enough milk." This is extremely, extremely rare. If you have some milk, unless you are starving or dehydrated, you can probably have sufficient milk if you feed the baby frequently enough. Sure, in the first two months it feels like the baby is constantly at the breast. But then it spreads out. The point is, women in our country increasingly say they don't make enough milk (an acquaintance recently gave up trying to nurse after three days!), and that's just statistically unlikely to be the case.

So then, ever the bastion of balanced reporting, we get a quote from a dedicated breastfeeder, a woman in her 30s with four kids who says she hasn't been a night away from her kids since they were born, that breastfeeding is an all-encompassing lifestyle. Now, that's an extreme too. Introduce that bottle before four weeks and find a sitter or a relative and go on with your life, if you so choose! Being a slave to your kids (if you don't want to be one) does no one any favors, and this type of statement, as true as it may be for some women, doesn't help those who are on the fence about breastfeeding.

Exhibit #2: "The Ascent of a Woman" (fabulous headline, as usual). This piece is about female presidents and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's political aspirations. The first part is enlightening, examining what prevents the U.S. from electing a woman chief executive when compared to many other countries that have done so (see Michelle Bachelet of Chile, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia, Mary McAleese of Ireland, Angela Merkel of Germany, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo of the Philippines and Tarja Halonen of Finland). Is it our culture or our political pipeline, where women senators and governors are so underrepresented?

(An aside: I abhor the classic argument "America is not ready for a [fill-in-the-blank: black, Jewish, female] president." How will we know we are ready unless we try? Were we ready for civil rights? Not that I necessarily think Clinton is the answer to our troubles--I want the best candidate possible vying for the job.)

Then the article dives into Hollywood's views on Sen. Clinton. What's up with that? We get not only Martha Stewart's opinion, but also those of Susan Sarandon, George Clooney, Sharon Stone and Kathleen Turner! [Sorry, that deserves some more exclamation points: !!!!] So this is our intelligentsia? Since when are celebrities our go-to experts for the history of democracy?

From a paper of this caliber, presumed keeper of the fourth estate, this is just sad.