Do you object to this Time magazine cover?

[Sha]

Interesting discussion! I haven't read all the responses, just chiming in to say that I do object to the sensationalism of the Cover, but I don't object to extended breastfeeding in general.

 

[ksinger]

I have to say I would be EXTREMELY traumatized if I had memory of my mother breast-feeding me. Ick. My earliest memories of childhood go back to about when I was 3-4 years of age, so thank God I wasn't breast-fed as a toddler.

For those posters who doubt that the boy on the cover will be teased, spend some time in a middle school. I'm a reading specialist for grades 6-8, and kids this age are relentless and unmerciful with one another.

Ditto Packrat and Mrs. Jam...my husband has taught both middleschool and highschool and I hear the real stories and not the Pollyanna "they would never DO that, people are raising their kids to be sensitive!" stuff. I can extrapolate to when he's about 12-13, and some boys at school get hold of that pic. "Whoa DUDE! Your mom is HOT! You think she'd let ME do that? I mean, like didn't you have a boner the whole time growing up??" etc. etc. etc. Even if they never lay on hand on this kid, as the guy on SNL said, there isn't enough camo in the WORLD to protect him from the blowback.

Come on guys, tell me you can't see something like that happening. It's not even a serious stretch of the imagination.

As an aside, it's interesting too that (as far as I know) nobody has talked to the dad about this. (In fact, dads have been conspicuously absent from this whole discussion inside and outside this thread) Ya gotta wonder where he was through all this and his feelings on the matter. Did he approve, or is he one of those guys that sits by passively and let's mom call all the parenting shots?

 

[Laila619]

I have to say I would be EXTREMELY traumatized if I had memory of my mother breast-feeding me. Ick. My earliest memories of childhood go back to about when I was 3-4 years of age, so thank God I wasn't breast-fed as a toddler.

For those posters who doubt that the boy on the cover will be teased, spend some time in a middle school. I'm a reading specialist for grades 6-8, and kids this age are relentless and unmerciful with one another.

But this toddler's peers are just 3 years old themselves. I highly doubt they'll come across what will be an old and long-forgotten copy of Time magazine in 6-7 years.

 

[HollyS]

I don't understand anyone here who thinks this mother should have done this, no problem. C'mon.

I don't believe anyone here would want to have a memory of doing this with mommy at age 3-5. Certainly teenagers would consider that the grossest thing ever - - just ask one.

Formula and breast milk is for infants. Babies. If a child can chew solid food and drink from a cup, there is no reason for nursing or bottles.

Weaning can be hard, just like potty training. But you don't let a kid sh*t diapers at 3 or older unless you've lost your mind.

 

[Laila619]

I don't understand anyone here who thinks this mother should have done this, no problem. C'mon.

I don't believe anyone here would want to have a memory of doing this with mommy at age 3-5. Certainly teenagers would consider that the grossest thing ever - - just ask one.

Formula and breast milk is for infants. Babies. If a child can chew solid food and drink from a cup, there is no reason for nursing or bottles.

Weaning can be hard, just like potty training. But you don't let a kid sh*t diapers at 3 or older unless you've lost your mind.

According to whom? Not according to the AAP or the WHO. What should they drink instead? Cow's milk? Because we all know that isn't very nutritious as it was once thought.

 

[TravelingGal]

I don't understand anyone here who thinks this mother should have done this, no problem. C'mon.

I don't believe anyone here would want to have a memory of doing this with mommy at age 3-5. Certainly teenagers would consider that the grossest thing ever - - just ask one.

Formula and breast milk is for infants. Babies. If a child can chew solid food and drink from a cup, there is no reason for nursing or bottles.

Weaning can be hard, just like potty training. But you don't let a kid sh*t diapers at 3 or older unless you've lost your mind.

Could only be spoken by someone who doesn't have kids.

Holly, I don't attachment parent, but I know that there are many babies who can chew solid food and drink from a cup pretty early on. I think there are plenty of good reasons if you subscribe to attachment parenting to nurse beyond that (I'm not talking about WAY beyond, btw). Many people in THIS country would agree that nursing to age 2 is fine, and that's way beyond solid foods and cups.

As far as diapers go...well, I also know plenty of people who don't potty train their kids until after three, with 3.5 years being more and more common these days especially when it comes to boys. As for reasons why people train late? Well because believe it or not, sometimes kids DO have a mind of their own and will refuse to poop on the potty. I believe you can "control" and train many things when it comes to kids, but it's pretty darn tough to force a kid to poop on the potty unless they are good and ready.

My kid is 4 and has been trained since she was 2.5 years old...and I'll tell you this: I MISS diapers. It was so much easier! I'd be happy to lose my mind and keep the kid in diapers until she's 10!!!!

 

[kenny]

What's the point of potty training when we are all eventually going to end up wear diapers anyway?

 

[rosetta]

Oh boy.

Lots of heated debate.

I won't add to it.

If I have kids, I'll probably breast feed for a while, but not that long as I'll have to go back to work.

Problem solved.

 

[HollyS]

I don't understand anyone here who thinks this mother should have done this, no problem. C'mon.

I don't believe anyone here would want to have a memory of doing this with mommy at age 3-5. Certainly teenagers would consider that the grossest thing ever - - just ask one.

Formula and breast milk is for infants. Babies. If a child can chew solid food and drink from a cup, there is no reason for nursing or bottles.

Weaning can be hard, just like potty training. But you don't let a kid sh*t diapers at 3 or older unless you've lost your mind.

Could only be spoken by someone who doesn't have kids.

Holly, I don't attachment parent, but I know that there are many babies who can chew solid food and drink from a cup pretty early on. I think there are plenty of good reasons if you subscribe to attachment parenting to nurse beyond that (I'm not talking about WAY beyond, btw). Many people in THIS country would agree that nursing to age 2 is fine, and that's way beyond solid foods and cups.

As far as diapers go...well, I also know plenty of people who don't potty train their kids until after three, with 3.5 years being more and more common these days especially when it comes to boys. As for reasons why people train late? Well because believe it or not, sometimes kids DO have a mind of their own and will refuse to poop on the potty. I believe you can "control" and train many things when it comes to kids, but it's pretty darn tough to force a kid to poop on the potty unless they are good and ready.

My kid is 4 and has been trained since she was 2.5 years old...and I'll tell you this: I MISS diapers. It was so much easier! I'd be happy to lose my mind and keep the kid in diapers until she's 10!!!!

Yes, I don't have my own children. But my mother ran a daycare center for most of my growing up years into my adulthood. I've changed hundreds of diapers personally, so I'm no novice at that. And I witnessed my mother do the hard work of potty training many kids for parents who thought it was "too early". (She must have been a pro; I was trained at 15mos. because she couldn't afford diapers for two babies when my sister came along a few months later.) It can and has been done earlier than 3. And dont you know, with my "take no prisoners" attitude, I wouldn't have a problem training a tot to tinkle on the potty? (I am my mother's child, for sure.)

 

[TravelingGal]

For a lot kids, tinkle is easier. It doesn't take as long. Poop can be another story altogether (although I have heard the reverse).

I was trained before 2, as was my brother, so I fully believe in early training. I just don't believe that if you train after three, you are *insane.*

 

[kennedy]

I don't understand anyone here who thinks this mother should have done this, no problem. C'mon.

I don't believe anyone here would want to have a memory of doing this with mommy at age 3-5. Certainly teenagers would consider that the grossest thing ever - - just ask one.

Formula and breast milk is for infants. Babies. If a child can chew solid food and drink from a cup, there is no reason for nursing or bottles.

Weaning can be hard, just like potty training. But you don't let a kid sh*t diapers at 3 or older unless you've lost your mind.

Good grief, the arrogance on this thread is mind boggling. So, now a mother is insane if her child isn't fully potty trained by 3? And babies who can eat solid food and drink from a cup should be weaned? WHY? That would apply to many babies less than a year old! Are you saying that you know better than the AAP, WHO, and Health Canada (to name just a few)? Simply being around children is very, very different than raising them, so the fact that you helped out in a daycare does not make you a parenting expert. Moreover, children are people and vary significantly in when they reach certain developmental milestones. For one child, being weaned and/or potty trained at 2 might be fine whereas for another child it would be far too early. There is no one size fits all approach to parenting and anyone who tells you there is doesn't know much about kids or parenting.

 

[HollyS]

I don't understand anyone here who thinks this mother should have done this, no problem. C'mon.

I don't believe anyone here would want to have a memory of doing this with mommy at age 3-5. Certainly teenagers would consider that the grossest thing ever - - just ask one.

Formula and breast milk is for infants. Babies. If a child can chew solid food and drink from a cup, there is no reason for nursing or bottles.

Weaning can be hard, just like potty training. But you don't let a kid sh*t diapers at 3 or older unless you've lost your mind.

Good grief, the arrogance on this thread is mind boggling. So, now a mother is insane if her child isn't fully potty trained by 3? And babies who can eat solid food and drink from a cup should be weaned? WHY? That would apply to many babies less than a year old! Are you saying that you know better than the AAP, WHO, and Health Canada (to name just a few)? Simply being around children is very, very different than raising them, so the fact that you helped out in a daycare does not make you a parenting expert. Moreover, children are people and vary significantly in when they reach certain developmental milestones. For one child, being weaned and/or potty trained at 2 might be fine whereas for another child it would be far too early. There is no one size fits all approach to parenting and anyone who tells you there is doesn't know much about kids or parenting.

Children have been reared for centuries without world health organizations telling parents what they should do. BTW, most of your "experts" aren't raising their own kids; they're too busy raising yours. And, no, having squeezed one or more out of your body doesn't make you anything other than a mom. It doesn't automatically confer expert status on you, either.

Whatever. I guess you'll just have to be offended at my take on this subject.

 

[kennedy]

I don't understand anyone here who thinks this mother should have done this, no problem. C'mon.

I don't believe anyone here would want to have a memory of doing this with mommy at age 3-5. Certainly teenagers would consider that the grossest thing ever - - just ask one.

Formula and breast milk is for infants. Babies. If a child can chew solid food and drink from a cup, there is no reason for nursing or bottles.

Weaning can be hard, just like potty training. But you don't let a kid sh*t diapers at 3 or older unless you've lost your mind.

Good grief, the arrogance on this thread is mind boggling. So, now a mother is insane if her child isn't fully potty trained by 3? And babies who can eat solid food and drink from a cup should be weaned? WHY? That would apply to many babies less than a year old! Are you saying that you know better than the AAP, WHO, and Health Canada (to name just a few)? Simply being around children is very, very different than raising them, so the fact that you helped out in a daycare does not make you a parenting expert. Moreover, children are people and vary significantly in when they reach certain developmental milestones. For one child, being weaned and/or potty trained at 2 might be fine whereas for another child it would be far too early. There is no one size fits all approach to parenting and anyone who tells you there is doesn't know much about kids or parenting.

Children have been reared for centuries without world health organizations telling parents what they should do. BTW, most of your "experts" aren't raising their own kids; they're too busy raising yours. And, no, having squeezed one or more out of your body doesn't make you anything other than a mom. It doesn't automatically confer expert status on you, either.

Whatever. I guess you'll just have to be offended at my take on this subject.

I never said I was an expert (although I actually sort of am by profession, but that's besides the point). But, yes, I'm also a mom and I'm actually quite proud that I squeezed a couple of babies out of my body, thank you very much. I'm not so much offended by your take on the subject as I am your attitude that your take should be everyone's take and that your way is the right way.

You seem both dismissive of my status as a mother and dismissive of health organizations. If you don't value peer reviewed scientific research and you don't value the experience of mothers, who's left?

 

[Loves Vintage]

I don't understand anyone here who thinks this mother should have done this, no problem. C'mon.

I don't believe anyone here would want to have a memory of doing this with mommy at age 3-5. Certainly teenagers would consider that the grossest thing ever - - just ask one.

Formula and breast milk is for infants. Babies. If a child can chew solid food and drink from a cup, there is no reason for nursing or bottles.

Weaning can be hard, just like potty training. But you don't let a kid sh*t diapers at 3 or older unless you've lost your mind.

Good grief, the arrogance on this thread is mind boggling. So, now a mother is insane if her child isn't fully potty trained by 3? And babies who can eat solid food and drink from a cup should be weaned? WHY? That would apply to many babies less than a year old! Are you saying that you know better than the AAP, WHO, and Health Canada (to name just a few)? Simply being around children is very, very different than raising them, so the fact that you helped out in a daycare does not make you a parenting expert. Moreover, children are people and vary significantly in when they reach certain developmental milestones. For one child, being weaned and/or potty trained at 2 might be fine whereas for another child it would be far too early. There is no one size fits all approach to parenting and anyone who tells you there is doesn't know much about kids or parenting.

Children have been reared for centuries without world health organizations telling parents what they should do. BTW, most of your "experts" aren't raising their own kids; they're too busy raising yours. And, no, having squeezed one or more out of your body doesn't make you anything other than a mom. It doesn't automatically confer expert status on you, either.

Whatever. I guess you'll just have to be offended at my take on this subject.

I never said I was an expert (although I actually sort of am by profession, but that's besides the point). But, yes, I'm also a mom and I'm actually quite proud that I squeezed a couple of babies out of my body, thank you very much. I'm not so much offended by your take on the subject as I am your attitude that your take should be everyone's take and that your way is the right way.

You seem both dismissive of my status as a mother and dismissive of health organizations. If you don't value peer reviewed scientific research and you don't value the experience of mothers, who's left?

Kennedy - What is your profession? Just curious, since you mentioned something about it (but didn't say specifically) with respect to attachment parenting a page or so ago.

 

[kennedy]

I don't understand anyone here who thinks this mother should have done this, no problem. C'mon.

I don't believe anyone here would want to have a memory of doing this with mommy at age 3-5. Certainly teenagers would consider that the grossest thing ever - - just ask one.

Formula and breast milk is for infants. Babies. If a child can chew solid food and drink from a cup, there is no reason for nursing or bottles.

Weaning can be hard, just like potty training. But you don't let a kid sh*t diapers at 3 or older unless you've lost your mind.

Good grief, the arrogance on this thread is mind boggling. So, now a mother is insane if her child isn't fully potty trained by 3? And babies who can eat solid food and drink from a cup should be weaned? WHY? That would apply to many babies less than a year old! Are you saying that you know better than the AAP, WHO, and Health Canada (to name just a few)? Simply being around children is very, very different than raising them, so the fact that you helped out in a daycare does not make you a parenting expert. Moreover, children are people and vary significantly in when they reach certain developmental milestones. For one child, being weaned and/or potty trained at 2 might be fine whereas for another child it would be far too early. There is no one size fits all approach to parenting and anyone who tells you there is doesn't know much about kids or parenting.

Children have been reared for centuries without world health organizations telling parents what they should do. BTW, most of your "experts" aren't raising their own kids; they're too busy raising yours. And, no, having squeezed one or more out of your body doesn't make you anything other than a mom. It doesn't automatically confer expert status on you, either.

Whatever. I guess you'll just have to be offended at my take on this subject.

I never said I was an expert (although I actually sort of am by profession, but that's besides the point). But, yes, I'm also a mom and I'm actually quite proud that I squeezed a couple of babies out of my body, thank you very much. I'm not so much offended by your take on the subject as I am your attitude that your take should be everyone's take and that your way is the right way.

You seem both dismissive of my status as a mother and dismissive of health organizations. If you don't value peer reviewed scientific research and you don't value the experience of mothers, who's left?

Kennedy - What is your profession? Just curious, since you mentioned something about it (but didn't say specifically) with respect to attachment parenting a page or so ago.

I'm a psychotherapist and have a particular interest in issues around attachment.

 

[Ella]

Ladies, no personal attacks or the thread will be closed. Keep it civil.

 

[Skippy123]

Just out of curiosity has anyone read the article? what did it say? I probably won't go out and buy the magazine but now I am curious what it actually said, or if it was pretty tame and the picture is just kind of like the Demi Moore pic where it is try to grab attention.

 

[Skippy123]

Not sure if anyone post this already but the Mom on the Cover of the Magazine said she didn't like how they posed her for the Cover!! http://ferndale.patch.com/articles/ferndale-mom-responds-to-time-magazine-cover-conversation

 

[FrekeChild]

Just out of curiosity has anyone read the article? what did it say? I probably won't go out and buy the magazine but now I am curious what it actually said, or if it was pretty tame and the picture is just kind of like the Demi Moore pic where it is try to grab attention.

I have it on my desk at work. Usually I don't have magazines on my desk, but I decided I didn't want our clients oogling her goodies right next to me (homeless and recent felons make up a significant portion of our clients). If no one has posted about what it says by tomorrow, I'll let you know once I read it!

 

[packrat]

I don't work w/kids by profession. I have two kids and I used to BE a kid. I was a sensitive child. Now a sensitive adult. But yanno..even the most sensitive Pollyanna's such as myself found things to tease other kids about. Not when I was three. Not even five or six really..when I hit middle school into Jr High, them's the teasing years. And no, the kids peers aren't going to remember this. They're three-how many people remember being three? And..I'm pretty sure they're not regular subscribers to TIME at age three or the target readers of this particular article, or that the parents sat them down to discuss it w/them, so why would they remember? But someone, somewhere, who is older, WILL remember, and post it on mom's facebook page or heck, the kid's facebook page or whatever they have in 10 years. Things like this have a way of finding their way back "home" again. Are their names mentioned at all? Their faces were shown, and one thing about the wonders of the internet--people can make connections, recognize a now grown up face, recognize a name, whatever, and something will *click* and suddenly "Dude it's yer mom's BOOOOOB! OMG dude it's in yer MOUTH!! bwhahahahahaha" point and laugh at him.

I know this b/c I have a brother and I can guarantee that if we traveled back in time to age 10 or so, and he found out one of his friends was the kid in the picture, that's exactly what he'd say/do.

 

[Skippy123]

I don't work w/kids by profession. I have two kids and I used to BE a kid. I was a sensitive child. Now a sensitive adult. But yanno..even the most sensitive Pollyanna's such as myself found things to tease other kids about. Not when I was three. Not even five or six really..when I hit middle school into Jr High, them's the teasing years. And no, the kids peers aren't going to remember this. They're three-how many people remember being three? And..I'm pretty sure they're not regular subscribers to TIME at age three or the target readers of this particular article, or that the parents sat them down to discuss it w/them, so why would they remember? But someone, somewhere, who is older, WILL remember, and post it on mom's facebook page or heck, the kid's facebook page or whatever they have in 10 years. Things like this have a way of finding their way back "home" again. Are their names mentioned at all? Their faces were shown, and one thing about the wonders of the internet--people can make connections, recognize a now grown up face, recognize a name, whatever, and something will *click* and suddenly "Dude it's yer mom's BOOOOOB! OMG dude it's in yer MOUTH!! bwhahahahahaha" point and laugh at him.

I know this b/c I have a brother and I can guarantee that if we traveled back in time to age 10 or so, and he found out one of his friends was the kid in the picture, that's exactly what he'd say/do.

Packrat, yes there names are mentioned http://ferndale.patch.com/articles/ferndale-mom-responds-to-time-magazine-cover-conversation

sounds good FC!

 

[Bella_mezzo]

kennedy total threadjack to say that your advice could be most welcome in the adoption thread from time to time

 

[Kaleigh]

I feel bad for the kid in the ad. I can only imagine what is ahead for him. I do know the Mom on the cover was breast fed until the age of 6? That's what was reported on TV.

I know in Eurpope they do it for longer. I have no issue with that.

But to me if a kid can spell milk they probably should be off the breast?? IDK...

And I am a Mom who couldn't breast feed because of a virus. I really wish I had that experience but oh well...

 

[ksinger]

Just out of curiosity has anyone read the article? what did it say? I probably won't go out and buy the magazine but now I am curious what it actually said, or if it was pretty tame and the picture is just kind of like the Demi Moore pic where it is try to grab attention.

Skippy, you dear mother of two handsome, happy boys, my own curiosity melded with your plea (who could deny you anything after all?) and I went out and bought the mag.

So, excerpt and commentary below.

"Going into this, I never would have thought we would parent the way we do," she says. "I thought other parents who did this were crazy."

"A lot of people might use the same word to describe the child-rearing philosophy Joanne subscribes to. It's called attachment parenting, and its rise over the past two decades has helped redefine the modern relationship between mother and baby. It's not just staunch devotees like Joanne; the prevalence of this philosophy has shifted mainstream American parenting toward a style that's more about parental devotion and sacrifice than about raising self-sufficient kids."
.
.
...Dr. Sears' bio follows, etc, etc.... boxes containing points called "Sears vs. Science". A discussion of whether crying as an infant really does cause brain damage, as Sears asserts. A small section on Bowlby's attachment theory, and some of the misconceptions that have occurred in parents reading Sears and thinking they are irreparably damaging their baby by not holding him all the time or letting him cry for more than a moment.
.
.
"While the concept sounds simple, the practicalities of attachment parenting ask a great deal of mothers. The three basic tenets are breast-feeding (sometimes into toddlerhood), co-sleeping(inviting babies into the parental bed or pulling a bassinet alongside it) and "baby wearing", in which infants are literally attached to their mothers via slings. Attachment parenting dogma also says that every baby's whimper is a plea for help and that no infant should ever be left to cry.

This demanding brand of child rearing has ignited a philosophical battle that rages within the parenting community. At least two books refuting the principles of attachment parenting have already been published this year, on the heels of 2011's blockbuster Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, a book about why parents should demand more from their children and not the other way around. In a way, the arguments for and against attachment parenting mirro question about family and work that still divide America five decades after the advent of modern feminism, when nearly half the U.S. workforce is made up of women."


And here we get down to it, the "it" being I think, why Badinter in her book, is frothing about how "modern motherhood" is setting women back in their hard-won advances...

"Much of Sears' instruction for fathers revolves around the supportive role they can play for their wives. Do the dishes so mom can focus on breast-feeding, is a typical piece of advice."
.
.
.
"Still, it's easy to see shades of sexism or naivete-- which one, it's hard to say-- in Sears' chapters on working and parenting....Sears also encourages mothers to start home businesses instead of heading to the office every day and describes his baby sling as a convenient hands-free device that's "work and wear".

But does Sears really believe it's OK for moms to work? A 1997 evangelical version of The Baby Book called The Complete Book of Christian Parenting & Child Care, which the Searses say they wrote to counter the fire-and-brimstone, discipline-oriented message evangelical parents were used to, includes a chapter called "Going Back to Work?" that says "[Some] mothers chose to go back to their jobs quickly simply because they don't understand how disruptive that is to the well-being of their babies. So many babies in our culture are not bing cared for in the way God designed, and we as a nation are paying the price."


So far a good article. It also mentions that Sear's philosophy is the polar opposite of what they grew up with - Watson's "Psychological Care of Infant and Child from 1928, and Dr. Spock's Baby and Child Care from 1945. So my take on this is pretty much remaining steady - I see it as a swing - a bit too far - in the other direction. Pretty typical, no doubt needed in part, but still not balanced, IMO. And FINALLY, a word from a FATHER! A section called "The Detached Dad's Manifesto. How fathers can contribute by just chilling out". This father argues against the whole thing, for several really good, dare I say it, BALANCED reasons. Yay dad.

 

[movie zombie]

all i know is no one did this kid a favor: can you imagine him running for political office and someone posting this picture?!

 

[Laila619]

all i know is no one did this kid a favor: can you imagine him running for political office and someone posting this picture?!

It's so scandalous seeing a toddler nurse. Way more scandalous than what other politicians have been photographed doing in the past.

This thread is getting odd to me. No one bats an eye at seeing Kim Kardashian's boobs nearly completely hanging out of a low-cut dress, but people are horrified seeing a toddler breastfeed.

 

[movie zombie]

i nursed my own daughter.
i am not shocked to see a child being nursed in public.

this is not a toddler being nursed but a photo on the cover of a major magazine of a mother in a defiant pose and her kid on a chair so he can get that boob into his mouth. [great way to sell magazines!]

again, no one did this kid a favor.
not his mother, not the magazine, not the editor, not the photographer, etc.
in the end, it will be this kid that will pay the price.

the photo could have been done differently and without trying to be sensational....because that is all it is: "sensational".
there is nothing loving or comforting in that photo unless one equates the mere fact he has a breast in his mouth with love and comfort. if that is all it takes to be loving/caring, there is some **** i'd like to show you that is certainly loving/caring in that same sense.
mom certainly does not convey with her body or her face "love" and/or "comfort". in fact, the only connection in that photo of her and her child is her breast. neither are looking at each other or touching each other. it is a very gross misrepresentation of what breast feeding is all about.

the video link kenny posted makes a very clear distinction between the two mothers.......
or how the two mothers allowed themselves to be portrayed.

 

[sstephensid]

all i know is no one did this kid a favor: can you imagine him running for political office and someone posting this picture?!

It's so scandalous seeing a toddler nurse. Way more scandalous than what other politicians have been photographed doing in the past.

This thread is getting odd to me. No one bats an eye at seeing Kim Kardashian's boobs nearly completely hanging out of a low-cut dress, but people are horrified seeing a toddler breastfeed.

Is he breastfeeding? I highly doubt this kid was breastfeeding at the time of this photo. It would be highly uncomfortable due to the position. Also, photoshoots take at least a few hours the kid could not be "feeding" the whole time. It seems to me the kid was forced to suck his mother's breast for the sake of pictures, not for nutrition/bonding.

 

[ksinger]

And this piece (the link was suggested in the actual article, along with a few others) is a total slam-dunk, nail-on-the-head thing, IMO.

http://ideas.time.com/2012/05/10/parents-do-whats-right-for-them-not-for-the-kids/?iid=op-main-feature

I remember my mom talking about reading Dr. Spock - the baby guru of her day, and saying it had some interesting stuff, but she dismissed most of it and did what she thought best.

This piece points out that A) isn't it interesting that the definers-of-motherhood are almost exclusively male, and that B) they all admitted to reacting strongly in the opposite direction to perceived inadequacies in their own upbringings, and then finally C) that they "wove those subjective experiences into iron-clad theories they believed to be based on scientific “fact.” - that all this says more about THEM (and us) than about any universal constants of "mothering".

 

[Skippy123]

Ksinger, thank you for posting that info!!! I would already get an F for letting them cry, with twins, how can you Not let them cry??? I mean you only have 2 hands! I am sure I cried as a baby and I think I turned out okay? lol I do think as a mom one needs to be nurturing and they should be soothed if they do cry but sometimes one has a baby with colic and what can you do? I did wear one of my babies and it did seem to help but yet he still cried. I don't have a strong opinion either way; if someone wants to raise their kids the way Dr. Sears wants then okay whatever floats your boat. I do think being a mom is wonderful and tough all at the same time so if for some reason you want to do it a certain way and it doesn't work out, then let go of the guilt because things are going to happen and it isn't always in your control (that is what I learned from having preemies almost 10 weeks before they were due).

Personally for me the bigger issue then if this is okay or not to do it the Dr. Sear's way, is that now being a mom I really think that moms should have the option like in Canada to be home for at least 6 months. I breaks my heart to see moms having to make the decision to go back to work only after being home for 3 months and they have to go back because they need the money or they will lose their job. I remember working with a lady that she really needed the money and she was so exhausted trying to pump for her baby and juggle working. Now looking back I feel even more for her for what she did to keep her family going! So to me she is super mom! Anyway, as a mom, I wish the govt gave more options for maternity leave, even the option for dads to stay home.