Bet the Daily Mail readers are all up in arms about this article!

[WinkyWinkola]

www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=493514&in_page_id=1879&in_page_id=1 879&expand=true#StartComments

LOL Desi.

Er, women can be infected by mysogynist ideas as well you know. You don't have to be a man to be influenced by views which are hostile to women, just as you don't have to be white to be influenced by racism.

I think the comment that's got to me most is the woman who breastfed her daughters until two but thinks anything beyond that is 'a little weird to say the least'. You'd have thought after the comments she must have at least heard, if not had directed at her, that she'd have a bit more sympathy.

LOL I love that.

"What I do is OK, but what everyone else does is wierd".

So Daily Mail.

Thanks for the lecture, LB. Again.

A misogynist is one who hates all women. No, it needn't be a man, but it's a bit of a leap to accuse a woman who has a problem with extended breastfeeding as being a misogynist.

Can someone clarify - has this child never had solid food?

Of course the child will have had solid food.

The DM comments do make me laugh - the "she MUST be a non-working single mother" Why? I work full-time, have a partner and still manage to bf.

wheresthehamster - why would you think that ???????

the article is one woman's experience, she is a bit surprised by it but it is her life.
the comments are from people with no personal experience and yet they all know much better than the actual woman involved what her experience actually means.
the sheer arrogance of it is interesting imo

That's OK Des, always happy to give you a lecture. No-one made the leap you claim, though.

I think the ones who think it's 'weird', 'disgusting' etc are so fixed in their views of breasts as primarily sexual objects that they find it jars their sensibilities seeing an older child at the breast. A weeny little baby is ok but not a child, it would seem

I don't see it that way, cat. To my mind, the comments following the article are very specifically about extended breastfeeding, not about mother/child bonding in general.

I just wish we could get to a point on this website where a specific paper was not used as a scapegoat for all societal gripes. Why, for instance, would an uber-intelligent, aesthetic, childless Guardian reader not also have a problem with extended bf? Most of the people I know would be uncomfortable with bf a 4yo. Some read papers, some don't. They read all sorts of papers, or none at all.

MN positively bristles with offence on every subject. Why can't some of you see that there are thousands upon thousands of DM readers on this site who might possibly be offended by your constant critique of their morals and their intelligence? The constant sneering simply because they chose to read a certain newspaper.

LOL, come on now Desi you're never going to get us to stop sneering at the Daily Mail. It's not just MN that sneers at it, if you're a private eye reader there's loads of sniping at it - it's part of the culture of the magazine/ site. I'm sure there must be loads of other sites/ publications/ programmes that enjoy griping about the DM as well. No point using rational arguments about that, it's just too enjoyable slagging off the DM. And so blissfully easy as well.

But yes you're right, I'm sure loads of Guardian readers would also be horrified by the idea of bf older children. Lots of people in our culture would.

Then I shall take off my wig, set down my gavel, and let rip a loud fart.

And LB, I need only to refer you to cat's post. She said it much better than you ...

Oh please.

People choose to read the DM. They don't choose to be irish or black.

The DM is about a whole culture and that's what people are sneering at, not the individual readers necessarily.

I know some DM readers. Yes really. Even they know it's rubbish. But they can't resist. Like the X Factor.

When the mum said "there were times when I wish I had weaned her" - I thought she meant she had never given her solid food

Also when she mentioned feeding 50 times a day I didn't think there was time to make her breakfast, lunch and tea as well

"Hmmm. Try removing the references in these posts to "DM readers" and replacing them with "Irish people" or "balck people" or "working class pepole". Still fun? Thought not."

Whaaaaaaaaaat??? So people have no choice about whether they are DM readers or not? They are denied jobs/homes because they read, der der der, The Daily Mail?

You were being funny weren't you?

They are a persecuted minority. I'm going to set up a christmas box scheme for them.

I'll enclose leaflets about socialism along with their christmas presents.

lol at a Christmas box scheme for Daily Mail readers

So, Tinker. From your post, am I to assume that all DM readers are a bunch of fuckers?

In which case, how many friends, exactly, do you have?

Oh, and lastly, what paper do you read?

oh I see
yes weaning can mean two quite separate things and that can be confusing
50 does seem a lot but a "feed" in this context could be (likely to be) a few seconds
you could ask - how many cuddles does your dd have in a day? how many sips of drink?
I would think those two combined are roughly equivalent.
but not every toddler will feed anything like that much of course

Why would you assume that?