I agree that the photo looks a little awkward with the child on a chair. In the articles there are a few more photos with other mum's and babies and I think they are better and more natural looking.
Printable View
I agree that the photo looks a little awkward with the child on a chair. In the articles there are a few more photos with other mum's and babies and I think they are better and more natural looking.
Stupid double post 2 posts later????
This is one of the other photos in the article and I think it is much more natural looking. I have a photo very similar of my DS and DD1 breastfeeding together.
Actually the cover kinda defeats the purpose. By putting the child on a chair, making him look bigger, it is as if they want to exaggerate the fact that this is an old kid the mother is BF. A natural pose would have been better, IMO.
I love that picture Mylittle, love the way the older boy has his arm around the newborn. TBH I am not a fan of the picture and feel it has been shot like that deliberately to be controversial. I just hope that with all this 'debate' that people are actually open to thinking about how they parent and if there is anything they want to do differently, whatever that may be.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
i've not stood her on a chair - but she's stood herself on the chair at the bench and asked for it! perfect height really! i'm not averse to sitting her on the kitchen bench while feeding if i'm trying to have a conversation with DH. she's too big and awkward to feed holding her now, esp with my dodgy wrist! so we just work it out:
this picture stirred a lot of controversy nearby today which i overheard (and decided to stay out of) - the judgemental comments made me feel ill!you'd think people would just accept the 'each to their own' philosophy... me still BF my DD impacts no one aside from myself, DD and, to a lesser degree, DH. yes, it means DD can't just go for sleepovers with Granma whenever, so i guess mum could whinge that it puts her out a bit - but pffffffffffft. i haven't been able to say at any given age "today you don't get it cos you're too old - yesterday was ok, but today, no way!". she will wean when she's ready...
I think the picture on the cover is terrible for promoting extended breastfeeding - it is as someone said shot to make him look as old as possible and as someone else said very sterile, it doesn't convey any of the feelings the model talks about in the article - a more natural shot of how most 3 year olds are fed (snuggled up in their mums arms, or lying next to them in bed) would have worked far better - and am not sure that the benefits of stirring up the debate outweigh the way some people will take this photo. I also don't like the whole competitive feeling of it - including the way the boy is wearing combat trousers - it is all way too staged.
That's exactly it though isn't it. If the biggest "issue" with extended breastfeeding is that your daughter can't stay at her grandmother's house then there's really not much of an issue. That impacts on you, your DD, your DH and to a lesser extent your mum. Couldn't matter two hoots to me so why shouldn't you be given all the support in the world, or if that can't happen people just mind their own business.:
I think the photo Mylitta linked is absolutely gorgeous and, given that I imagine a huge number of people will never see anything other than the magazine cover, would have done a much better job than the cover photo chosen of showing what a nurturing, relaxed and natural thing breastfeeding is. To me the woman in the cover photo looks like she's going to just stand there and "take it for the team" until she can get out of there and do something she wants to do more. Not helpful to the cause.
The photo Mylitta linked should have been the cover. Much more nurturing and lovely. I saw The Age's article about the article and was mostly annoyed at their poll! For a good couple of hours after the article was online the poll had the following options:
Q: Breastfeeding is unacceptable when a child is:
0
1
2
3
4
And that is all. I couldn't answer. A) I don't think it's my place to judge other people's nurturing relationships, and B) I don't think unacceptable's a word you should use about breastfeeding! Silly people. They then added "it's acceptable at any age".
Right now 24% of people say it's acceptable at any age. Thank you to those 24% of people (close to 16000 people have answered). To the 8% of people who said 0 - um, I don't have words for your lack of education.
Isn't it funny though that a poll attached to an article about an article is what got my goat :rofl:
I think the cover makes it look a bit staged and artificial, I agree that that the photo Mylitta linked is much nicer. But I'm glad that Times has gone there.
I like the article on the Age titled 'I’m mum enough to think this cover sucks' - particularly the last three paragraphs
:
I breastfed my daughter until she was 21 months old.
It wasn't a conscious choice, just the method my daughter preferred to use to meet her nutritional and comforting needs.
Breastfeeding until two, three, four years or beyond is common in many parts of the world - partly because unsafe drinking water makes breastmilk the safest option for infants, but also because cultural norms ascribe breasts their biological purpose.
Advertisement: Story continues below
For the many Western women fighting to breastfeed their children in public, or pumping tirelessly to ensure their breastfeeding relationship is retained once back at work, divisive media coverage, like this cover doozy on Time, only serve to make mothers who breastfeed, or attachment parent, feel marginalised and exploited.
The mother pictured feeding her three-year-old son, Jamie Lynne Grumet, had good intentions when posing for the instantly-infamous photo, saying that she wants "everyone to be encouraging", no matter what their parenting style.
But newsworthy magazine covers aren’t built on good intentions. Even the magazine's managing editor, Rick Stengel, acknowledged that the image is provocative.
I know many women who did feed their babies beyond two years old, but I've never seen them feeding a child standing on a chair.
What we in the West call "extended breastfeeding" (anything past a year) isn't an act of defiance, nor is it what one Jezebel commenter coined "emotional incest".
Why are we so frightened of loving our babies? The very hormone which triggers the letdown of milk – oxytocin, the ‘love’ hormone – acts in a positive feedback loop when a woman breastfeeds her child.
Research by scientists at Warwick University found that when a baby suckles, the mother's neurons respond by churning out oxytocin. This extra release of oxytocin creates much stronger links between nerve cells, creating a 'positive-feedback' loop, where the greater the concentration of the chemical, the faster it's produced.
This allows massive, intense bursts of the love hormone to sweep through the brain at intervals of around five minutes during a breastfeeding session. That’s kind of awesome, right?
While the mother is experiencing feelings of love, trust and protection while feeding her child, the baby is receiving endorphins through her milk which dull pain and reduce stress.
Indeed, some research suggests breastfed babies appear to handle stress better a decade later than their bottle-fed peers.
So extended breastfeeding is far from unusual, or creepy. In a lot of ways it makes sense.
No, it’s not for everyone, and some women struggle to breastfeed at all, let alone past 12 months.
But making it in to some sort of extreme mothering competition, as the headline with the photo suggested, also marginalises those who can’t (or don’t, or won’t) breastfeed. It once again promotes the idea of a 'Mummy War' with hippies on one side and Gina Ford-book-toting career women on the other.
I’m not an attachment parent, but there are things I have in common with people who are.
I wore my daughter in a sling because it made dropping my son at preschool easier. I tried ‘baby led weaning’ because as a working mum I had little time to make specialist organic baby food. I lay with my daughter until she falls asleep because it means I can relax and reach another level on Angry Birds while calling it parenting.
Most parents make choices born out of convenience and personal preference, rather than militant philosophy. And most of the time we don’t judge what the parent next to us is doing. But I guess that doesn’t make a good cover story.
I loved it really. I remember when I was on the phone my children would pull up a chair beside me, stand on it and help themselves - it was in the day when phones were attached to the wall, and they knew I would be happy if they were quiet. Breastfeeding older kids is normal. And most of the discussion I've heard seems to have taken a "live and let live" tone, even if mothers feel it's not for them.
Love it! And I love the opportunity to talk to ppl about it, educate them or even just normalize it.
I don't like the extreme parenting tag. It's just natural in our house.
I agree. Not once have i ever sat breastfeeding my 3 year old and though to myself "Wow, look at me, I'm so extreme! Bring on base jumping and cave diving!" ;):
I think anything that helps extended breastfeeding to be seen as normal is a good thing. I do prefer the cover of the latest Essence (ABA) magazine though. It's the most gorgeous, natural shot of an older child feeding with her younger sister there as well. Love it.
Totally agree about the Essence cover.
The Time cover I don't think makes extended Breastfeeding seem normal, it makes it seem extreme, and as most people won't read the article is a shame.