opinions? Its not homeschooling, but attachment parenting... I haven't read the article, "Are You Mom Enough" but I guess its not going to be very pro- attachment parenting! The photo seems mocking, in a way. So what a mom breastfeeds a 3 year old (I did it until mine were 2), but the way the boy looks, very big and standing alone, makes it almost comical, right? And the way time.com describes “baby wearing,” - in which infants are physically attached to their parents by slings...they make it sound so weird... Did anyone read the article?
I haven't read the article. I can't even bring myself to give the photo more than a passing glance. I nursed my Ds till he was 30 months old and my Dd till she was 20 months, but you're right, the photo is in very poor taste and makes a mockery of it.
I think they're going for the shock and controversy sales pitch. IMO: Often we forget that there is no one right way to parent. The documentary 'Babies' shows this well. I read that in Mongolia extended breastfeeding until age four is the norm but they don't tandem feed so their children are spaced accordingly. Many Mongolians think that drinking breastmilk at any age is good and normal and basically a cure all. Some cultures keep their babies wrapped for 3-12 months to keep them safe and warm without delaying their development. Some cultures practice elimination communication and so never use nappies. Our family takes a smorgasboard approach to our parenting, we pick and choose what suits us best from what's available. What suits one family or one child may not suit another.
From news sites, it seems that the article is about Dr. Sears, who they say is an "extreme parenting" advocate. I don't consider attachment parenting or extended breastfeeding extreme at all. I do think the photo pushed it too far. I am not offended by it, but don't think it represents what extended breast feeding is about.
I think they purposely tried to go for shock. I didn't realize the kid was 3 until someone told me. I thought he was more like 8 (the height and dress made him look older). I also didn't read the article and don't care to.
I saw this last night. It is supposed to be pro-attachment parenting, but instead I think it just makes it look disturbing. A cozy setting with the mother looking tenderly into the eyes of her son on her lap would have been way more natural and appropriate. I mean, that mom in the photo DOES brastfeed her son, she said, but I doubt she just stands in the kitchen making dinner while he pulls up a stool to "have a drink". Time magazine went for shock value, but I dont think they helped their article. Instead of reading seriously, a lot of people are just going to be shaking their head going "that's sick".
I think we need to keep in mind that we live in a society that does not value children at all. Admittedly, many AP parents get to the point where they engage in child-worship. Not all, of course, or even the majority. But that's a road AP can lead down. As a result, with such a child-centric parenting method, how could our collective society possibly react well to it? I mean, if you saw a group of women worshipping a farm, you'd think that was crazy, right? Because, while we find food necessary and useful and occasionally wonderful (yet often a burden), we do not hold food in high esteem. How could anyone center their life around something so mundane?
I'm not a prude, I think breastfeeding is a beautiful and natural thing. I did it myself for all three of my children. But this photo is completely inappropriate. If she chooses to nurse this long, fine. But to blatantly display her breast on the cover of a national magazine is just trashy. It looks sick and disturbing. I think it's because the kid does look quite a bit older than he is and the pose just does not suggest normal, loving bonding of mother and child. I personally don't practice attachment parenting, but I can't imagine this article doing much for the movement.
I'm told that one of my great-aunts, at lunch time, would breast-feed one of my uncle's brothers through the school railings when he was four or five years old. It was a very poor area and the people were rough and ready, but the practice was not uncommon in the pre-WWII era.
I agree that it is sensationalized to sell. The title alone is meant to invoke strong emotion. And it's a great sales ploy because look, we're talking about it here! As for the photo I'm not at all offended by it. In America we see breast as sexual objects only. Most of the comments I've seen about the cover aren't based on the side of boob showing (because let's face it, most Cosmo covers show more boob than that) but it's a reaction of 'ew gross' or 'that's child abuse' because she is breastfeeding a 3 year old. The average age for weaning a child off the breast worldwide is like 4.2 years of age. 'Extended' breastfeeding is not an uncommon occurrence in other (many) parts of the world. But I've personally met many mothers in the US that wouldn't even try to breastfeed because they thought it was gross & sexual to breastfeed. I find that very sad. Whether we realize it or not, we all buy into the breast as sex objects only if we are offended by this photo or find it tasteless. My theory has always been, if I were somewhere it's okay to bottle feed a child, it's an okay place to breastfeed a child! If it's okay to place a photo of a mother giving a baby a bottle on the cover of a magazine, then it's okay to place a photo of a mother breastfeeding on the cover of a magazine. That's just my 2 cents.
I too think that the photo does not portray the naturalness and beauty of breastfeeding. I think they are trying to use the photo to shock people into what they are trying portray in the story. If she wants to breastfeed her son at age 3 , good on her. I just wouldn't go and do a photo shoot about it.
I had to think about this one for a few days, before I could comment... I don't think the cover is respectful to the child. Children have their dignity. It is perfectly normal and reasonable for a 3 year old to say... use a sippy cup, suck his thumb, breastfeed and do dozens of other things we typically associate with younger kids. But we do not take pictures of them doing these things and plaster them on the front of Time magazine. Even if we must show a 3yo nursing for educational purposes, we can still do it in a way that's respectful to him. Show him on the family couch next to his mum. Take the picture from an angle that shows the top of his head instead of his face. Or make it black and white, or use a soft lens... whatever it takes to put the focus on a tender moment, instead of trying to shock the viewer. Three year olds are dignified little people, involved in the very serious business of growing up. Now this child has his face, his photo, and his mouth on his mother's breast, plastered far and wide across the Internet, forever and ever. This picture will still be public when he's eight, eighteen, and twenty-eight. I think his mother was foolish and cruel to allow it.
