Do you object to this Time magazine cover?

[Pandora II]

I honestly don't think the excuse that "women in other countries do this all the time" is valid. Lots of things happen in other countries that we don't do. That's the equivalent of a kids explanation of "all my friends are doing it so it's ok for me to do it too". Different norms apply to different areas, we're not in other countries...we're here and we have an adequate supply of medicine, vitamins, food supply and social norms. This cover wouldn't be so controversial if it fell within that social norm.

Where did I say it was an 'excuse'? I don't need an excuse to do what I and millions of other women consider perfectly normal and the best for our children.

What I was pointing out was that extended breast-feeding and/or breast-feeding in public is not 'abnormal' as many people here seem to feel. What is abnormal is seeing breasts as predominantely or exclusively sexual.

But then I don't live in a country that has such prescriptive social norms so I probably don't see it from your point of view.

 

[kenny]

It had to be a spoof, maybe it was from The Onion, but I once heard about the best tabloid cover ever, with the following headline.

"JFK returns to earth on a UFO with a great new diet!"

 

[ksinger]

Can any of the ladies who support extended breast feeding suggest a general cut off age, or is it up to the child? I guess that's the part that's vague for me. I'm not judging - just curious and trying to learn about a subject that's foreign to me. Surely attachment parents and those that support extended BFing would say that, at some point, a child is too old? What is that age range? Or is it "anything goes" and it's just up to the family?

Again, I find this a fascinating topic and I'm very interested to learn more. My DH is from France and I'm planning to ask him about it too. I wonder if French women BF longer, and what his reaction is to this issue, and what's considered normal in his culture versus American cultural norms.

Really, for me it boils down to cultural and individual views surrounding boobs. I was never around nursing moms. Never ever. So to me, I view breasts as sexual before I see them as nurturing or to do with child rearing (being a teen during the '90's, I blame Pam Anderson). I wish that wasn't the case, but it's how I'm wired. Hence my icky feelings when I see an older child nursing.

I know I'm not supposed to be here, but according to this book by French feminist Elisabeth Badinter, only Irish women nurse a shorter period of time than French women, but since the Irish don't give all that complete/reliable stats (says she), French women get to wear the European badge of shame for being the most recalcitrant when it comes to breastfeeding.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Conflict-Modern-Motherhood-Undermines/dp/0805094148

 

[sillyberry]

Can any of the ladies who support extended breast feeding suggest a general cut off age, or is it up to the child? I guess that's the part that's vague for me. I'm not judging - just curious and trying to learn about a subject that's foreign to me. Surely attachment parents and those that support extended BFing would say that, at some point, a child is too old? What is that age range? Or is it "anything goes" and it's just up to the family?

Again, I find this a fascinating topic and I'm very interested to learn more. My DH is from France and I'm planning to ask him about it too. I wonder if French women BF longer, and what his reaction is to this issue, and what's considered normal in his culture versus American cultural norms.

Really, for me it boils down to cultural and individual views surrounding boobs. I was never around nursing moms. Never ever. So to me, I view breasts as sexual before I see them as nurturing or to do with child rearing (being a teen during the '90's, I blame Pam Anderson). I wish that wasn't the case, but it's how I'm wired. Hence my icky feelings when I see an older child nursing.

The first time I saw anyone nursing I was 22 and I was HORRIFIED. I mean, a woman just pulled out her boob and started nursing? In front of people? We were at her home and I still DID NOT GET IT. I acted nonchalant, but I was seriously squicked out. I'm much more used to breastfeeding now, and understand the benefits and many reasons to be in favor (for some length of time, anyway), but I'm still with you in that it does not feel "normal" to me. I have no idea what I will do if/when I have a child. Social norms are powerful things.

 

[miraclesrule]

:::::::Begin Rant:::::::

The most depressing aspect of the cover was to have this result. It was intended to sensationalize a very divisive issue in an attempt to foster animosity among women. Because guess what folks, we are quickly shifting from a male dominated culture to a female dominated culture. I can link you to stats, but I'm a little too lazy to do that right now. Women are quickly becoming the higher wage earners. More men lost jobs in the economic fall out than women. But hey, it's just business....women are paid between 73% to 83% of what they would pay a man for the same job (conservative estimates). More and more men are choosing to be SAHD or being forced into the position by circumstances. The more powerful women become the more threatened the "system" will become. Do not let it divide and conquer.

Times they are a'changing. It's a great thing that it is changing too, IMHO. Evolution is good. If we were having this conversation 50 years ago, it would be about a "colored" kid drinking from the water fountain for the "white" folk....and yes there would be people who would have been appalled by the mere thought of such an act.

What I find reprehensible is the fact that women are so easily divided by these issues. If we are to survive as a species, we need to stop this war on our own sisterhood. Americans in particular are prone to arrogance and self-righteousness. It is a very dangerous mentality for long term sustainability.

It is true that we oversexualize our "biological" food source in this country, almost to a sickening and repulsive degree. In fact, I find the oversexualization of breasts to be more disturbing than the cover photo. It's why young women want implant surgery for their graduation gifts. Ugh. Sad. Not empowering AT ALL. You don't see that in Europe.

Just because we aren't second or third world doesn't mean that certain biologically natural practices of other countries has to be altered to some individual's (probably male) opinion that there is a better first world option and encourage the country to adopt the opinion as gospel. We don't even mandate GMO labeling in our formula in the U.S. Again, something you don't see in Europe.

With our food sources becoming more and more corrupted and our health as a nation decline in a substantial way, it baffles me that we would be outraged over this cover. Yes, it is disturbing that they aren't positioned in a cuddly position to make everyone viewing it a little more comfortable. Yes, one could make the prediction that this kid will forever be an outcast and haunted into needing anti-depressants to cope with life in the future. But really???? Really??? This kid will be bullied despite this cover as every kid is to some degree. Perhaps, the following generations will have evolved to the point that BF'ing until age 4 is considered the norm. Then what say you?

My daughter was potty trained by 2. My granddaughter is closer to 3 and still not a sign of being potty trained. Do I have to stop myself from voicing my own judgment on my daughter because of what we did in my generation? Absolutely. Sometimes I'm successful at keeping my mouth shut, and sometimes I'm not. Do I recognize my own duplicity by trying to impose my view just because that is the way "we" did it? Not every time...but I do try to be very mindful when I'm about to judge my daughter. Do any of us really know....I mean REALLY know...what will "ruin" a child or not? Of course we don't. (Excluding obvious emotional and physical abuse) Anyone who thinks anything to the contrary is delusional.

:::::End rant for now because I am sure I was all over the place and could debate this for hours:::::

Happy Belated Mother's Day to all of you. It's the most challenging job even on the best days, and made more difficult by the onslaught of guilt, judgment, and second-guessing that you do EVERY DAY because you just want the very best for your children.

 

[Maria D]

miraclesrule: AMEN SISTER!

 

[Laila619]

miraclesrule: AMEN SISTER!

Ditto.

 

[Pandora II]

Erica, I can only go on what I know from my own family and friends - and some discussions amongst other extended BF'ing mothers I know online as regards when to stop feeding.

The vast majority let the child self-wean - it seems to be either around the 2 year mark or around 3.5 - 4, I don't know anyone who is still feeding past age 5. My SSIL weaned her daughter at 3.5 because she had to go into hospital for a week - it was not a happy time I believe. One of my friends is ready to be done at 3.5 - but then she has now been breast-feeding non-stop for over 8 years (3 kids).

My sister plans to self-wean her son, he's currently 15 months. My other sister couldn't breast-feed her daughter as she had a cleft palate, but she exclusively expressed for 6 months and carried on expressing for well over a year. Her son was fed till he was 2.5 and her 15 month-old is still nursing I think.

My father recommended that starting school was a good cut-off point when his patients asked (school begins the year the child turns 5 in the UK).

I will probably let my daughter self-wean - although I would probably start discouraging her around 4. She is pretty keen on nursing so I would imagine it will be around 4. Although she has asked for milk a lot less than usual over the last 3 months - she's generally too busy doing other things - she always asks if she hurts herself, if she's tired or upset, if she wants some one-to-one cuddles and mummy-time and especially if she's feeling unwell - if she turns into a limpet I know that she's coming down with something. If I've been out and she's at home with her father or a babysitter she will always ask within minutes of my getting home - I suppose it's a way of rebonding with me for her.

For myself, I wouldn't be at all worried if she was to wean tomorrow, but she's only little for such a tiny amount of time that I would feel very, very mean if I was to begrudge her something that she obviously feels is important to her - it would be tantamount to throwing out a child's favourite teddy-bear in front of them only more so as there would also be a big sense of maternal rejection.

I spent a lot of time discussing weaning with a child psychotherapist who advised me that there would be a significant period of mourning and it was important to acknowledge that if I decided to wean before she was ready, and to make sure I didn't do it at a time of other changes such as starting school.

I don't know anyone IRL who has or does feed beyond the age of 4.5 - and generally for the last year or so it will only be last thing at night or first thing in the morning.

When you look at other cultures or at evolutionary norms, or indeed at other primates (translating their timescales into human ones), between 2 and 7 appears to be the general range - with 2-4 the most common.

For myself I grew up surrounded by women, including my mother and her friends, who openly breastfed, both my grandmothers and all my aunts also breast-fed. I have 3 younger siblings so it was a pretty common sight in our house - and my mother generally fed for between 18-24 months (my father didn't allow me to have any solids till I was 7 months). Living on a Pacific island where there was no formula (and during a cholera epidemic) breast-feeding could be the difference between life and death and so everyone breast-fed their babies as a matter of course.

I also learnt that it is very easy to feed a child without making a big song and dance about it and half the time without anyone noticing... I fed my daughter at 2.5 in a sling in the checkout queue at the supermarket, when we got outside my husband asked if I wanted to sit down and feed Daisy before we got in the car and was rather suprised to find out that she was already done since he was standing right next to me and having a conversation. I can guarantee that no-one else noticed either.

When should a cut-off be? I would consider feeding a child older than 7 to be excessive (I would not be happy feeding for that long for definite) and certainly over double digits there are possibly potential issues in general that should be looked at and I think it is inappropriate. However, if both parties are happy then each to their own, there are far worse things to worry about.

Hope that helps!


The French have pretty low rates of breast-feeding compared with most other European countries. Places like Sweden I think over 90% of new mother's breast-feed and a high percentage do extended feeding. IIRC (would have to look up the charts) around 7% of women in the US who breastfeed are still doing so at 2 years so it's not that unusual. If you want to read more on the subject then a great resource is Kellymom (www.kellymom.com).

 

[Pandora II]

miraclesrule: AMEN SISTER!

Ditto.

 

[kenny]

miraclesrule: AMEN SISTER!

+1 . . . if a male is allowed to +1.
Well, I'm not fully male, just a gay male, so maybe it's okay.

 

[HollyS]

"What I find reprehensible is the fact that women are so easily divided by these issues."




To quote Kenny: people vary.
Not everyone of the female gender thinks exactly the same on each issue. Nor should we. Regardless of feminist theory.
The choices we all make - - for ourselves - - are not intended to be a constraint on another woman's behavior or activities.

No one said this woman should not be able to do 'her own thing'. But every woman does not have to agree that she's right.
Everyone is entitled to an opinon, and it doesn't have to be in favor of her choices.



And, actually, the original post was about whether we approved of the cover. Overwhelmingly, it appears we do not.

 

[kennedy]

Can any of the ladies who support extended breast feeding suggest a general cut off age, or is it up to the child? I guess that's the part that's vague for me. I'm not judging - just curious and trying to learn about a subject that's foreign to me. Surely attachment parents and those that support extended BFing would say that, at some point, a child is too old? What is that age range? Or is it "anything goes" and it's just up to the family?

Again, I find this a fascinating topic and I'm very interested to learn more. My DH is from France and I'm planning to ask him about it too. I wonder if French women BF longer, and what his reaction is to this issue, and what's considered normal in his culture versus American cultural norms.

Really, for me it boils down to cultural and individual views surrounding boobs. I was never around nursing moms. Never ever. So to me, I view breasts as sexual before I see them as nurturing or to do with child rearing (being a teen during the '90's, I blame Pam Anderson). I wish that wasn't the case, but it's how I'm wired. Hence my icky feelings when I see an older child nursing.

I'm happy to answer your questions. First, though, I want to say that I really appreciate the respectful manner in which you asked your questions. Rather than saying, "I find it icky, therefore it IS icky and this mom is one step away from being a child molester," you're open to the possibility that there are other ways of looking at it. Doesn't mean you have to agree, but at least there's room for dialogue.

Yes, I think most attachment-oriented parents would agree that there does come a point when a child is too old, but they would also likely agree that one needn't be too concerned that their child would get to that point. As I see it, self-weaning is like any other developmental milestone where there there can be a large variation in normal. I think Pandora is right that somewhere between 2-4 is when most kids would likely self-wean if left to their own devices and there is research to support this. The fear that children would nurse forever and ever if we allowed them to is just as strange as thinking they would never move on to crawling from walking or babbling to talking -- it's all part of the maturation process. We live in a culture where women don't learn from other women how to breastfeed and, in fact, many women are too embarrassed to nurse in public (hence the need for garments like the Hooty Hider). Breastfeeding is not easy at first and there is little support for most women to get through the often difficult first 6 weeks. Given the appallingly low breastfeeding rates in this country, it is clear that the VAST majority of children are being weaned long before they are ready. This concerns me much more than the hypothetical 10 year old who would still be nursing if his mom let him. That child almost surely doesn't exist.

I nursed my older daughter until she was 3.5. I was feeling tired of it at that point and I had the sense that she was ready. One day she just stopped and never asked again. The ending was mutual and I feel really good that it ended peacefully and without a struggle. She says she remembers it and I think that's really lovely. I didn't set out to nurse her as long as I did -- it just felt right and most of my friends were doing the same, so I didn't in any way feel like I was doing something weird or strange.

I hope that answers some of your questions!

 

[kenny]

the original post was about whether we approved of the cover. Overwhelmingly, it appears we do not.

Uhm, SO!?!

Clearly you derive great comfort in being in the majority, the "normal", the largest group.
Congratulations!
Enjoy what you appear to cherish as your superior status.

Equality means the person in the 0.0000001% of the population is equal to the 99.99999999%.
In 1938 Hitler was supported by the majority of Germans.

Numbers are meaningless.

 

[HollyS]

the original post was about whether we approved of the cover. Overwhelmingly, it appears we do not.

Uhm, SO!?!

Clearly you derive great comfort in being in the majority, the "normal", the largest group.
Congratulations!
Enjoy what you appear to cherish as your superior status.

Equality means the person in the 0.0000001% of the population is equal to the 99.99999999%.
In 1938 Hitler was supported by the majority of Germans.

Numbers are meaningless.

Jumping to conclusions, again?

I'm getting a bit weary of the 'superiority complex' you've bestowed upon me. Yawn.

 

[kenny]

the original post was about whether we approved of the cover. Overwhelmingly, it appears we do not.

Uhm, SO!?!

Clearly you derive great comfort in being in the majority, the "normal", the largest group.
Congratulations!
Enjoy what you appear to cherish as your superior status.

Equality means the person in the 0.0000001% of the population is equal to the 99.99999999%.
In 1938 Hitler was supported by the majority of Germans.

Numbers are meaningless.

Jumping to conclusions, again?

I'm getting a bit weary of the 'superiority complex' you've bestowed upon me. Yawn.

Go take a nap if you are yawning and weary.

THOU art the one implying superiority via being in a larger OR "overwhelming" group - or the "Norm" or "normal" group.
Our group is bigger! Neener Neener, is not a rational argument.

The left-handed people are not inferior in an overwhelming right-handed population.
Large numbers mean nothing today.
We have advanced, well hopefully.

 

[HollyS]

Kenny, there are no reasonable arguments, pro or con.

There are only opinions. I have one. You, no doubt, have one.

Doesn't make me superior to have one. It only makes me human.

I might think she's not doing her kid any favors. It's just a gut reaction. That's all. Hell, I might even be wrong.

No one here has a dog in this fight. We're just not all agreeing, down the line, to a person. So what? Do we have to agree?



You ascribe certain personality traits to me because you feel comfortable stereotyping me. I'm conservative, so I can't think outside the box and I can't be empathetic to anyone. I'm Christian, so I have a narrow point of view and think I'm holier-than-thou.

Yeah, yeah. I got it already.

But you're the guy who wants me to see past your 'labels' and view you in a different light.

Isn't it time you tried painting me with a less broad brushstroke? I'm not quite the cliche you've made me out to be. You might be surprised at what I think about many things.

 

[kenny]

So stop citing you being a member of a larger group, or "normal" or "norm", as if that means squat.

This is not 1840.
Y'all can't just vote smaller groups into oppression any more.
We have advanced beyond the , "Majority can screw over the minority" mentality.

Well, most of us have.

 

[HollyS]

So stop citing you being a member of a larger group, or "normal" or "norm", as if that means squat.

This 'norm' business really has you bugged, huh?

Kenny, really, I am sorry if I said anything that seemed to place myself on some higher plane. I don't feel above the masses. I swear.

Peace? If not complete forgiveness, a grudgingly accepted apology? How 'bout a hug?

 

[sillyberry]

So stop citing you being a member of a larger group, or "normal" or "norm", as if that means squat.

This is not 1840.
Y'all can't just vote smaller groups into oppression any more.
We have advanced beyond the , "Majority can screw over the minority" mentality.

Well, most of us have.

Huh? As I read it, HollyS was just stating the sense of this thread in response to the narrowly focused question you originally asked. Your outburst in no way follows. Who said anything about "y'all" voting anyone into anything?

 

[ericad]

It is true that we oversexualize our "biological" food source in this country, almost to a sickening and repulsive degree. In fact, I find the oversexualization of breasts to be more disturbing than the cover photo. It's why young women want implant surgery for their graduation gifts. Ugh. Sad. Not empowering AT ALL. You don't see that in Europe.

Miracles, I understand that you were having a rant, but in your post you talk about how this issue is dividing women and that we shouldn't judge each other, but then you make a very judgmental statement about those who have a different perspective than you (as well as those with implants, lol, which is a matter for another thread.)

I am one of those who view breasts as sexual instead of a "food source" due to my upbringing and social circle. I guess I'm sickening, repulsive and disturbing for feeling this way? Isn't that judgmental and divisive?

No one has to take the opinions on this thread personally (my post above was to make a point, I don't actually take offense). Some people believe in extended breastfeeding, others find it strange and so we're talking about it. I don't believe anyone here criticized breast feeding in general, or breast feeding in public - the issue at hand is the Time cover, potential motivations of the mom and consequences to the child, and extended breast feeding (beyond toddlerhood) in general.

I agree that being a parent is difficult. But by avoiding discourse about that which we don't understand, we empower fear of the unknown and miss an opportunity to learn. I find the subject matter fascinating. This is in part because I tried and was unable to breast feed my daughter and had to go to formula when she was 4 days old. If I'm being totally honest? I was relieved and I was a much better mom starting on day 4.5 because BFing wasn't for me.

DD also slept in her own room from day 1, went to a regular cup (sippy cups need not apply) at 1 year old, never owned a pacifier, and was fully potty trained (including overnight) and in full time preschool by age 2.5. So I'm the polar opposite of some of the moms on this thread, and I find it really interesting to hear their perspectives on raising kids via attachment parenting. I think that talking about our differences can bring women closer together if we do so respectfully and with support.

 

[kennedy]

Can any of the ladies who support extended breast feeding suggest a general cut off age, or is it up to the child? I guess that's the part that's vague for me. I'm not judging - just curious and trying to learn about a subject that's foreign to me. Surely attachment parents and those that support extended BFing would say that, at some point, a child is too old? What is that age range? Or is it "anything goes" and it's just up to the family?

Again, I find this a fascinating topic and I'm very interested to learn more. My DH is from France and I'm planning to ask him about it too. I wonder if French women BF longer, and what his reaction is to this issue, and what's considered normal in his culture versus American cultural norms.

Really, for me it boils down to cultural and individual views surrounding boobs. I was never around nursing moms. Never ever. So to me, I view breasts as sexual before I see them as nurturing or to do with child rearing (being a teen during the '90's, I blame Pam Anderson). I wish that wasn't the case, but it's how I'm wired. Hence my icky feelings when I see an older child nursing.

I know I'm not supposed to be here, but according to this book by French feminist Elisabeth Badinter, only Irish women nurse a shorter period of time than French women, but since the Irish don't give all that complete/reliable stats (says she), French women get to wear the European badge of shame for being the most recalcitrant when it comes to breastfeeding.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Conflict-Modern-Motherhood-Undermines/dp/0805094148

Interesting controversy surrounding Badinter's ties to the formula industry: http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl..._elisabeth_badinter_publicis_and_nestle_.html

 

[makemepretty]

Holy crap, I don't know why Kenny had such a mean reaction to HollyS' reply. Holly, you handled that very well. All HollyS did was reply citing the results...if numbers don't matter, why have a poll? Because they do matter. We call that voting, we count the numbers. Someone stating that does not deserve to be compared to Germany/Hitler. OUCH. Someone was having a bad day.

 

[kenny]

So stop citing you being a member of a larger group, or "normal" or "norm", as if that means squat.

This 'norm' business really has you bugged, huh?
Kenny, really, I am sorry if I said anything that seemed to place myself on some higher plane. I don't feel above the masses. I swear.
Peace? If not complete forgiveness, a grudgingly accepted apology? How 'bout a hug?

Hug Indeed.
I apologize, Holly.

I clearly have a visceral reaction to the term "normal" when "but we are the majority" is used as proof of, or even to infer, what is good and preferable.
It is my problem and I'm sorry I sometimes turn into a butthead when I get near the subject.

Clearly my brain damage is the result of being a gay kid growing up in the 1950s and 60s in a midwest town.
I was different since my earliest memories.
I didn't actually understand and accept I was gay till I was in my twenties.
As a little kid I was different from other boys and my two brothers and different is bad.
Even my own father rejected me.
Even a few years of therapy clearly hasn't erased my defensiveness when I see/hear people asking what's "normal" to they can also be normal, even when the subject has nothing to to with the gay thing.

It could be a guy on Rocky Talk, "What is the normal amount to spend on an ering?"
When is it "normal" to stop breast feeding?
A grown adult living on her own may ask, "Is it "normal" for your mother to not call first and just walk into your home without knocking?"

The list is endless.
It seems almost human nature to cling to what is normal and be against what is different.
To be normal is to be right and that's comforting, like being in a larger club.

Spend whatever you want on a ring; do some research and make your own decision on when to stop BFing; Tell your mom to call and knock and wait till you answer the door if that's what you want.

Of course no man is an island and relating to others and fitting into society is important.
But I think we as individuals don't check in with ourselves enough.
I think as a person becomes more mature and self confident he/she will be comfortable just being themselves in more ways with less concern for whether it is normal.

The ironic paradox I often ponder is . . . in which matters should we tolerate intolerance?

Again, sorry.
It's my problem.

 

[kat08]

I wasn't bothered by the picture itself, but I was bothered that particular picture would be used as the cover of the magazine. Its sole purpose was to shock people, and not in favor of extended breastfeeding.

I breastfed my younger daughter until she turned three, and encouraged weaning because no one in my family was supportive of it at that point, including my husband (although my parents weren't supportive from the get go; a few days would have been enough for them). My younger daughter would have self-weaned much later. She's turning five in a couple weeks and still really needs me (she's a little cuddle monkey), and that's okay. Each child is different. But the Time magazine cover totally does not capture the essence of children who want to continue breastfeeding. It's the baby in them, not the budding little man, who wants the security and comfort of the breastfeeding relationship. When my daughter was still breastfeeding, she didn't look like a little woman, she looked like what she was--a young child who hadn't shed all of her baby ways. The magazine cover intentionally makes the little boy look like a little man. Who breastfeeds in a sexy outfit with their child standing on a chair?

I also object to the sensationalizing it to further divide women. I would NEVER dream of making a woman feel bad for not breastfeeding. I was very private about doing extended breastfeeding, and only shared that I was doing that with people I felt would be receptive and not judgmental. Society is not very understanding, unfortunately, of extended breastfeeding, and that magazine cover won't help. Giving your children a loving environment is the important thing, and there are so many ways to go about doing that, whether you bottle feed, breastfeed for a few weeks, or do extended breastfeeding. I see it as a personal choice--there's no definitive right or wrong answer. I was bottle fed, and I turned out just fine. My children were breastfed longer than average, and they're just fine, too.

 

[ksinger]

:::::::Begin Rant:::::::

The most depressing aspect of the cover was to have this result. It was intended to sensationalize a very divisive issue in an attempt to foster animosity among women.

If the issue was already divisive, then we need to address the whys of that, don’t you think? While many see feminism’s claim that we could have careers and families too as a failed promise, and have given up on it , others see the increasing demands of motherhood – extended breastfeeding, being constantly available to one’s infant or, more importantly, one’s toddler, or derailing a career that many have worked long in school to achieve, to be going backwards. This is not animosity, this is trying – yet again – to get a handle on what the definition of “good mothering” is going to be and how the influence of that social construct will play out for women themselves.

Because guess what folks, we are quickly shifting from a male dominated culture to a female dominated culture. I can link you to stats, but I'm a little too lazy to do that right now. Women are quickly becoming the higher wage earners. More men lost jobs in the economic fall out than women. But hey, it's just business....women are paid between 73% to 83% of what they would pay a man for the same job (conservative estimates). More and more men are choosing to be SAHD or being forced into the position by circumstances. The more powerful women become the more threatened the "system" will become. Do not let it divide and conquer.

Again, we here on PS argue these issues from a position of being almost exclusively in the top ranks – or heading to being in the top ranks, of earners in this country. We also come at this from a position of being mostly married versus single mothers. Attachment mothering – and let’s just admit that the major responsibility for this type of parenting, falls mostly on the woman, is a real option only for the married with support – both financial and social, not the teen mother or struggling single or divorced mom. From a strictly economic standpoint, it makes the most sense for the partner making the least money or the least potential for advancement, to take a hiatus from a job. If the woman is not that partner, then the father should do it, but that doesn’t square with the “natural” and biological arguments used to promote attachment mothering. All this is also a big guilt inducer for the moms that this whole idea just doesn’t work for, at all. And honestly, I don’t want a female “dominated” culture, and in fairness, I don’t want to see men forced into circumstances. As a gender, we should know better than anyone what it means to be forced into a secondary position and shouldn’t be content with that for our men, who still get more of their self-worth and self-image from working outside the home. (And even in the Scandinavian countries, that have the most plush and egalitarian of all family policies, men STILL don’t “choose” to be the ones to stay home, for the most part. They go back to work much sooner than the woman.)



Times they are a'changing. It's a great thing that it is changing too, IMHO. Evolution is good. If we were having this conversation 50 years ago, it would be about a "colored" kid drinking from the water fountain for the "white" folk....and yes there would be people who would have been appalled by the mere thought of such an act.

What I find reprehensible is the fact that women are so easily divided by these issues. If we are to survive as a species, we need to stop this war on our own sisterhood. Americans in particular are prone to arrogance and self-righteousness. It is a very dangerous mentality for long term sustainability.

Yes, and the women and men of the La Leche League – which has been a large driver of the move to breastfeed, shows by their own rhetoric, they are not immune from that very arrogance, nor crusading.

“Every mother who breastfeeds her baby is a key player in socia change,” promises the league…….”Gregory White, husband of one of the league’s founders, a doctor, said that woman who bottle-fed was “handicapped”. She may have turned out to be a pretty good mother, but she could have been a lot better mother if she had breastfed. More recently, the league has called for the shaming of women who do not breastfeed, as with mothers who smoke or drink: “Doctors have no hisitation whasoever about making parents feel guilty about using a car seat…by contrast, breastfeeding is often treated as a choice.” But it is not—it is a duty to protect the baby from the “harm caused by artifical baby milk.” Sounds pretty arrogant and divisive to me. And I've read things in this very thread that implied that if you aren't willing to sacrifice, then you shouldn't have a child. Now, of course having a child involves sacrifice and duty...and love, but what I see with some of the more extreme proponents of attachment parenting, is a model of self-abnegation that is unrealistic AND not healthy for the mother. It's just too extreme a model of what should be expected of parents, IMO.


It is true that we oversexualize our "biological" food source in this country, almost to a sickening and repulsive degree. In fact, I find the oversexualization of breasts to be more disturbing than the cover photo. It's why young women want implant surgery for their graduation gifts. Ugh. Sad. Not empowering AT ALL. You don't see that in Europe.

I don’t disagree with you on the distaste for implants, but that attitude – from my recent reading – is very second-wave feminist. The younger ones – that even bother to own the moniker “feminist” anyway – don’t seem to agree with our take that implants or pornography or prostitution for that matter, are degrading to women.

Just because we aren't second or third world doesn't mean that certain biologically natural practices of other countries has to be altered to some individual's (probably male) opinion that there is a better first world option and encourage the country to adopt the opinion as gospel. We don't even mandate GMO labeling in our formula in the U.S. Again, something you don't see in Europe.

Anytime a biological “reason” for something pertaining to humans is trotted out, I’m immediately suspicious, if for no other reason than those “reasons” have been used for centuries as excuses to enslave, repress, discriminate. I’m not saying there isn’t a biological component to parenting, but I don’t believe in instinct as it applies to humans. This very topic is why: if breastfeeding for x-number of months/years was instinctual, we wouldn't be discussing this, we'd all just do it like automatons and that would be the end of it. But clearly our parenting behaviors are mostly learned and socially driven. So calling something more “natural” or saying it’s more like “our cave-sisters or current indigenous people did it therefore it’s better for US, doesn’t cut it as a good reason to my mind. Breastfeeding has proven benefits, but some claims for it just ARE overstated. Our ancestors probably nursed until they couldn’t for any number of reasons – none of them ideological – and they still had lives that were nasty, brutish and short, with high infant mortality.

With our food sources becoming more and more corrupted and our health as a nation decline in a substantial way, it baffles me that we would be outraged over this cover. Yes, it is disturbing that they aren't positioned in a cuddly position to make everyone viewing it a little more comfortable. Yes, one could make the prediction that this kid will forever be an outcast and haunted into needing anti-depressants to cope with life in the future. But really???? Really??? This kid will be bullied despite this cover as every kid is to some degree. Perhaps, the following generations will have evolved to the point that BF'ing until age 4 is considered the norm. Then what say you?

My daughter was potty trained by 2. My granddaughter is closer to 3 and still not a sign of being potty trained. Do I have to stop myself from voicing my own judgment on my daughter because of what we did in my generation? Absolutely. Sometimes I'm successful at keeping my mouth shut, and sometimes I'm not. Do I recognize my own duplicity by trying to impose my view just because that is the way "we" did it? Not every time...but I do try to be very mindful when I'm about to judge my daughter. Do any of us really know....I mean REALLY know...what will "ruin" a child or not? Of course we don't. (Excluding obvious emotional and physical abuse) Anyone who thinks anything to the contrary is delusional.

:::::End rant for now because I am sure I was all over the place and could debate this for hours:::::

Happy Belated Mother's Day to all of you. It's the most challenging job even on the best days, and made more difficult by the onslaught of guilt, judgment, and second-guessing that you do EVERY DAY because you just want the very best for your children.


And believe it or not I can't say more because (wait for it.........................) ............... I'm off to a baby shower for an attachement mother!! I kid you not. And I love her and her child (near 5) to pieces.

Enough said. For now.

 

[HollyS]

Kenny, no problem. I understand where you're coming from now. And while puzzled by your reaction, I didn't take it too personally.

I'm kinda used to you by now.



The prize for the most measured and reasoned response of page 7 (on point) goes to ericad.

 

[MissStepcut]

:::::::Begin Rant:::::::

The most depressing aspect of the cover was to have this result. It was intended to sensationalize a very divisive issue in an attempt to foster animosity among women. Because guess what folks, we are quickly shifting from a male dominated culture to a female dominated culture. I can link you to stats, but I'm a little too lazy to do that right now. Women are quickly becoming the higher wage earners. More men lost jobs in the economic fall out than women. But hey, it's just business....women are paid between 73% to 83% of what they would pay a man for the same job (conservative estimates). More and more men are choosing to be SAHD or being forced into the position by circumstances. The more powerful women become the more threatened the "system" will become. Do not let it divide and conquer.

Times they are a'changing. It's a great thing that it is changing too, IMHO. Evolution is good. If we were having this conversation 50 years ago, it would be about a "colored" kid drinking from the water fountain for the "white" folk....and yes there would be people who would have been appalled by the mere thought of such an act.

What I find reprehensible is the fact that women are so easily divided by these issues. If we are to survive as a species, we need to stop this war on our own sisterhood. Americans in particular are prone to arrogance and self-righteousness. It is a very dangerous mentality for long term sustainability.

It is true that we oversexualize our "biological" food source in this country, almost to a sickening and repulsive degree. In fact, I find the oversexualization of breasts to be more disturbing than the cover photo. It's why young women want implant surgery for their graduation gifts. Ugh. Sad. Not empowering AT ALL. You don't see that in Europe.

Just because we aren't second or third world doesn't mean that certain biologically natural practices of other countries has to be altered to some individual's (probably male) opinion that there is a better first world option and encourage the country to adopt the opinion as gospel. We don't even mandate GMO labeling in our formula in the U.S. Again, something you don't see in Europe.

With our food sources becoming more and more corrupted and our health as a nation decline in a substantial way, it baffles me that we would be outraged over this cover. Yes, it is disturbing that they aren't positioned in a cuddly position to make everyone viewing it a little more comfortable. Yes, one could make the prediction that this kid will forever be an outcast and haunted into needing anti-depressants to cope with life in the future. But really???? Really??? This kid will be bullied despite this cover as every kid is to some degree. Perhaps, the following generations will have evolved to the point that BF'ing until age 4 is considered the norm. Then what say you?

My daughter was potty trained by 2. My granddaughter is closer to 3 and still not a sign of being potty trained. Do I have to stop myself from voicing my own judgment on my daughter because of what we did in my generation? Absolutely. Sometimes I'm successful at keeping my mouth shut, and sometimes I'm not. Do I recognize my own duplicity by trying to impose my view just because that is the way "we" did it? Not every time...but I do try to be very mindful when I'm about to judge my daughter. Do any of us really know....I mean REALLY know...what will "ruin" a child or not? Of course we don't. (Excluding obvious emotional and physical abuse) Anyone who thinks anything to the contrary is delusional.

:::::End rant for now because I am sure I was all over the place and could debate this for hours:::::

Happy Belated Mother's Day to all of you. It's the most challenging job even on the best days, and made more difficult by the onslaught of guilt, judgment, and second-guessing that you do EVERY DAY because you just want the very best for your children.

How dare you tell me that my choice to undergo plastic surgery was not empowering. Seriously. I am deeply, deeply offended by this sanctimonious rant.

I've lived in Europe, and I don't hold it as any sort of golden standard of how a society should operate.

Furthermore, your "statistics" on the gender wage gap have been undermined and called into question by dozens of studies. Women do not get paid less for "working the same job." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html

 

[Skippy123]

MissStepCut, you are taking it way too personal; she gave her opinion, she didn't point fingers and say you. This thread is getting nutty.

 

[MissStepcut]

MissStepCut, you are taking it way too personal; she gave her opinion, she didn't point fingers and say you. This thread is getting nutty.

When I exactly fit the description of the type of woman she is describing, no finger-pointing is required. Plenty of opinions are offensive; ever had a conversation with a racist?

 

[Laila619]

MissStepCut, you are taking it way too personal; she gave her opinion, she didn't point fingers and say you. This thread is getting nutty.

It was already nutty a while ago, when it was hinted that extended breastfeeding could be bordering on possible sexual abuse.