TIME magazine: extended breastfeeding on the cover

[stopgap]

Making waves across the pond, is this...

www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-timecover-20120511,0,4753231.story

I haven't read the article but it looks like comments from the mother are at odds with their headline. I've just read some of the comments on one blog and am shaken by the vehemence of reaction against bfing a 3-year old, even from people who claim to support bfing.

I don't like the headline at all- 'mom enough'? That's a hornet's nest well stirred up I suppose it's too much to ask to have a mainstream article about extended BF that isn't deliberately provocative.

I read the guardian article earlier this morning. I've now read comments on it across different publications and the web.

I'm really shocked by people's attitude. Child abuse? Wtaf? No need once child has teeth? Bitty? It's for her? Bf bingo at its worst.

I feel really quite upset.

I just read the comments on the Guardian page. I got as far as "Not my proudest boner" and my BF bingo card burst into flames.

I shall be posting Kathy Dettwyler articles all over my FB today.

Well, she's brave anyway - I'd question the benefit to her son of being on the cover of TIME magazine, breastfeeding, when he's old enough to read and maybe understand some of the dialogue and debate it might cause but anyway...

It's more interesting to see from the links next to the article that there seem to have been some prudish reactions, where media outlets have chosen to blur her breast out of the picture, which is utterly ridiculous, and then some creepy reactions such as comments on the picture being 'hot' etc.

Er, no it's a picture of a woman and her child engaged in a perfectly natural activity. This salacious 'oooh, breasts, oooh, sexy!!!' reaction is more disturbing to me than a mother who chooses to bf her 3 year old.

Sorry, I don't mean he'll be reading TIME magazine at 3 years old obviously but that he's old enough to be aware of what it is, of news channels, media etc.

THREE and this is worth comment and a picture.

I can think of 4 DCs feed past three, and my own DD2 feed for so much longer as to make me ROFL if I wasn't so .

DD2 choose to carry on BFing, I simply didn't say no. One day of our mural choosing we decided to give up.

Surely that is how it should be. Mothers should all be encouraged to feed for 6 months to two years and beyond that it's absolutely their own business. Not DM, DMIL, DSIS or society's.

Sadly I only have one photo of DD2 feeding at a day old. I wish I'd taken others.

I wouldn't have posed for a mag. When she was three because, as I said, it simply isn't news.

When she was older I certainly wouldn't since I'm the least embarrassable person on the planet, but she isn't.

I don't like the headline, but I do like the picture. Yes, it's provocative, but any way you show a 3 year old breastfeeding on the cover of a magazine is going to be. The Mum is sexy, that doesn't mean feeding her child is and she looks totally confident in what she is doing and why and that's a good thing IMO.

It shouldn't be, but BF a 3 year old is news. So few people are even feeding 6 month olds, let alone 3 year olds and let alone in public or even in front of their own family. They have clearly chosen/engineered the photo to shock (I admit, I was a bit taken aback when I first saw it and I am all for anyone breastfeeding for as long as they like) and the article is about AP, not BF, but at least it's not done in a way where it ridicules women who BF children who aren't babies.

I just saw this on the Wright Stuff today, and was really shocked and saddened by the reaction.

Steve Furst came out with the old 'if they're old enough to ask for lunch...' chestnut, Matthew Wright made vomiting/gagging noises (!) and said something along the lines of 'you should surely stop once they have teeth', and most suprisingly to me, Anne Diamond appeared to agree with him ("well, quite") :(

Then that was it. No positive side mentioned, just a couple more exaggerated shudders from MW and a chorus of 'Euughs' from the audience.

It made me feel awful :(

Surely these sort of ignorant comments come as no suprise? You only have to look at any BF thread in AIBU to find similar...

Ultimately it doesn't matter what people think. I've already made it quite clear to anyone who will listen that I know that I intend to BF until self weaning, however old that may be. I have had one or two incredulous 'even if it's until she's 6' type of comments, but other than that no one says anything. I even posted the Time Magazine cover on my FB page yesterday and no one commented. I assume because they know I have an answer for everything...

I would say the same thing to all of them, and it's two words-

(not those two words)

"Evidence, please."

I think I was most surprised by the lack of any sort of discussion about the actual article, or even a mention of the fact that it is not abnormal to bf a 3 year old. They didn't even pretend to be concerned with anything but the photo.

I thought a mainstream TV programme (even something like the Wright Stuff) would have had more to say than 'that's just wrong'.

I'm just lol at the boy standing on a chair.

ds1 is much older and we could do the same pose without a chair.

Though I do not agree wit bf an older child, it just does not sit well with me, what others do in the PRIVACY of their home and family is entirely up to them and i respect that. This mother is doing the her son no favours by parading him publically on Time magazine, in a less than nurturing pose. This will stay in archives forever and may come back to haunt him when he is an adult, not right

Can someone make a live link for me? Am on the phone (whilst feeding!) and it won't let me copy/paste the url

Yes please, I need a link too.

Is this the right one?

Thank you

It's certainly a challenging photo, and I agree with the poster who commented on the absence of a nurturing aspect. I think that's what derails the message for me. I live watching my friend feed her two and a half year old - it's so natural and cosy, but this photo feels aggressive and yes, sexualised almost.

I say this as a new (ish) mum intending to do extended bf

Love watching my friend, not live

Thanks Ag, not sure how helpful that image is.

It just does not do extended bf any favours, and really enhances the bitty, and icky stereotypes

I actually quite like it. It's brave and unapologetic. It challenges the viewer as it's a very attractive woman with her breast out but instead of showing them off in a sexual way (which we are used to and would be less shocked by) she is displaying their natural function.

I don't think the picture itself is sexualised- she's wearing jeans and a vest! It's just we are conditioned to think attractive woman+magazine cover+ boobs is sexual.