This Has Nothing To Do With Queers, & I'm Not Looking For A Fight

[queerart]

I can't articulate (as I'm not sure) why I am uncomfortable with the recent cover of Time magazine.....


A 3 year old boy breast feeding, dressed in camo pants.... do Europeans breast feed their children at 3?


Maybe I squirm when I see it as Americans are just too up tight about things...... But I wonder, do we really need to see this?


Just thought I would ask others... (and I tend not to be on DU too much these days, so please don't take offense if I shouldn't answer your post)


This Time cover reminds me of a character on Little Britain: I still can't stop laughing......

[msongs]

1. maybe sucking on body parts is more of a private thing except maybe your own fingers while eating nt

[gateley]

2. It makes me uncomfortable, even though I don't think it should.

I attribute it to our victorian brainwashing that, even though we consciously know better, rears its ugly head from time to time.

[wandy]

7. I'll go along with you on that......

I know better. I should just dismiss it as bad taste.
It still kinda makes my skin crawl.

[emilyg]

9. It made me uncomfortable.

[NYC_SKP]

15. The Young Boy Does NOT Look Happy to Be There. I Suspect it's Deliberate.

The postures of each represent, to me, a forced situation.

It looks like child abuse from the body language, and I don't think its an accident.

[HockeyMom]

3. I nursed my daughter until she was almost 2

and just didn't want any more of it. HER choice, and that is probably the best choice.

[MuseRider]

6. Same here.

People thought I was crazy, most did it for 3 months tops and then were glad to be done with it. I nursed my youngest until he was too busy to sit and suck. When he was done I was done, and not all that happy about it myself. It is a tender time but it was time, he was ready.

My only problem with this photo is the use of the child. Feels like she is exploiting him although I have no idea, I just know that at 3 he was not able to understand what this might feel like coming up again in High School. Hopefully he will be a strong and self assured kid who can handle it.

I have known women who breastfeed until their kids go to school, even some when they come home from school. Whatever works for the mom and child, it is really nobody else's business.

[Blue Owl]

4. TIME sucks

n/t

[targetpractice]

5. I got into a debate on Facebook about this...

My discomfort is not from the concept of a mother breastfeeding her 3 year old son... I object when parents use their minor children as props when they are far too young to make choices for themselves. Breastfeeding is a wonderful thing, and so is free speech, yet I feel the same about parents who force their kids to carry signs at political rallies or display anti-gay hatred at protests — when they are too young to understand that they are being exploited to communicate their parents' opinions. In this instance, I question the mother's judgment or whether she paused to consider how her son may feel about the photo or controversy 10 or 15 years from now.

[yardwork]

11. That's how I feel about it, too.

[Zorra]

8. The staged body language and facial expressions are what disturb me

about the photo.

It's very contrived, and unconvincing.

[TeeYiYi]

10. You're right. It's because it's staged...

...that I'm feeling uncomfortable. And the fact that the kid looks older than 3. I would bet that he turned 4 within days of that photo shoot.

If the photo was genuine; of a real mother breastfeeding her toddler in a natural setting ie: National Geographic, it wouldn't bother me.

TYY

[targetpractice]

13. It's more than staging. That minor child was "directed" to look at the camera..

... while suckling by at least one adult (his mother or the photographer). A three year old cannot consent to be in such a controversial photo. Who knows if he was even thirsty?

That photo is all about the mother. She exploited her son, disclosed his identity, and did not pause to consider what he would think about the photo or subject matter in 10 or 15 years... I'm okay with mothers breastfeeding 3 year olds, but I really do object to parents who exploit their minor children to communicate their own controversial opinions... This mother is no better than Fred Phelps who made his kids carry "GOD HATES FAGS" signs, in my opinion.

[pnwmom]

16. No way is this mother comparable to Fred Phelps, the hater.

I'm not going to judge whether she's misguided or not. But she's not nursing her child, or even publicly nursing her child, out of hate.

[Ms. Toad]

12. Agreed.

I come from a faith community that is very supportive of breastfeeding as long as the mother and child find it appropriate. I nursed my daughter until she was 18 months old (and it was her choice to stop). I am very used to seeing children through ~age 4 nursing. I have never seen one standing on a chair (to make him seem taller/older), with mom wearing clothing (and in a pose) designed to make her look sexy. (More typically, mom flops on the floor or a couch, with the child draped across her lap.)

Nothing wrong with nursing at that age. Nothing even wrong with nursing in public at that age. But I find that particular display disturbing.

[MADem]

14. We'll just have to see how well these "attachment parented" kids turn out.

If they're 40 and still living at home, waiting for mommy to wash their Batman underwear and their blanky that doubles as a cape so they can feel safe in their little beds, well, I dunno.

I think by the time a kid gets teeth, it's time the kid learns how to start chewing his food. I think kids who are three or four are too old for breast feeding, but if these 'attachment parents' want to do it, that's their business.

I will say the few people I know who practice this form of parenting are a bit (no--MORE than a bit) insufferable. I know most parents are guilty of feeling that their child is the be-all and end-all, and that's natural, but the few attachment parenters that I know take that attitude to a pathological level. Not every poop is a miracle and not every word that comes out of Little Fauntleroy's mouth is a damn pearl of wisdom. I practice avoidance to the extent I can, so I don't have to listen to that self-absorbed shit, though, and all is well.

[pnwmom]

17. Babies get teeth at the age of 6 months and, yes, that's a good time to introduce solid food.

But up to the age of 1, breast milk or formula (i.e., imitation breast milk) should be the mainstay of the diet, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. And, according to the World Health Organization, real or imitation breast milk should continue to be given for at least the first two years.

This controversy is overblown because the number of mothers who breastfeed past the age of 2 is miniscule. Unfortunately, most women stop far too early, after only a few months.

[MADem]

18. I always thought a year was about the norm.

Of course, I am no expert and it is a different world for mothers who have to go back to work, which wasn't an issue back in the dark ages.

I think kids waiting for the tooth fairy to show up, though, are a bit, er, long in the tooth for that feeding method. I'm not talking about infants cutting a tooth, I'm talking about the ones looking for the quarter (er...it's probably five bucks or more now) under the pillow after they wiggle that baby tooth out.

But hey, whatever floats their boat. We'll see how they turn out.

I agree with those who have the impression that the mother on the mag cover looks like she's prosecuting an agenda and USING her child, who is unable to consent at his young age, to advance her opinions. I think that's not good. She can make the point without defiantly putting her kid on display.

[pnwmom]

20. Three and four year olds aren't getting adult teeth.

They still have what in the animal world are referred to as "milk teeth."

Permanent teeth usually begin coming in about age 6 -- first grade, when children get their first molars.

I suppose there may be some mother, somewhere, still nursing a child that age.

http://my.clevelandclinic.org/services/dental_care/hic_teeth_eruption_timetable.aspx

As seen in this chart, permanent teeth begin to come in around the age of 6.

In some children, the first permanent molars are the first to emerge; in others, the incisors are the first to emerge. By the age of 13, most of the 28 permanent teeth will be in place. One to four wisdom teeth, or third molars, emerge between the ages of 17 and 21, bringing the total number of permanent teeth up to 32.

[MADem]

21. The Time article suggested the high end of the whole nursing thing was seven years old!

Like I said, people can do what they want, but even SNL tonight said that the poor kid in that picture is in for a world of shit thanks to Mom putting him on the cover of that mag--the piece was brief and brutal...

[pnwmom]

22. It seems odd to me to be having this discussion in this group.

Ten or fifteen years ago, do you think when gay parents went public with photos of their children, those children might have been in for some grief from their friends? As a member of COLAGE, I know they faced teasing from other kids, just like their parents did with bigoted adults.

Was the possible disapproval of others a good reason not to do what the parents felt was right for their children?

It also seems odd to me to make such a big deal out of an outlier, when the real problem is that the vast majority of babies aren't breastfed as long as doctors say they should be -- at least a year.

[MADem]

24. Well, I don't know. I never thought gay families were a big deal.

I can't really relate to your example as being worthy of teasing, I guess. I always thought kids who had been bounced from foster home to foster home and were displayed on TV were terribly deprived, though. I always felt bad for those children on the news that they'd showcase like lost puppies "Little Darien is looking for a forever family...." If someone was willing to adopt those kids and give them a secure, safe and loving environment, more power to them. It's not like Time Magazine would give them the cover of their magazine, anyway, so it's really not the same as a family snapshot.

I do think a child of that size, standing on a chair, with that look of discomfiture if not terror on his face, with his mother looking at the camera with an annoyed expression, on the cover of a national magazine, isn't quite a typical family snapshot. The picture just doesn't convey to me what the mother might have hoped to convey.

It's not 'disapproval'--I really don't care what that mother does. I don't know her, I doubt I ever will. I think it's poor judgment. I do think she's using her child in a way that's...not fair to him. It's more about her wishes than his, this photograph. At least that's how it looks.

What's done is done. I think the mother made a poor choice. I have never liked the idea of publicizing pictures of children, or even using children as avatars, or plastering their videos and pictures all over the net, like they're prized possessions (and not people)--I think children have as much of a right to privacy as adults, and their images shouldn't be used like they're pets.

Obviously I don't win the day on this one. This controversial picture is out there now, and odds are good it'll be copied in unkind ways, mocked, etc. for cheap amusement--if it hasn't been already.

I am not the only one who finds the picture a bit odd, either.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/0512/Did-Time-sexualize-breastfeeding-with-its-Are-you-mom-enough-cover

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57432374/time-magazine-cover-of-breastfeeding-mom-sparks-intense-debate-on-attachment-parenting/

And the picture WAS indeed 'posed' and not representative of how the mother breastfeeds her child:
http://gothamist.com/2012/05/11/times_breastfeeding_mom_duh_i_dont.php

Here's a commenter who blames the magazine (I think the mother in the pic had a little something to do with the photo, too): http://thestir.cafemom.com/baby/137444/infuriating_time_breastfeeding_photo_is

[pnwmom]

25. I doubt you were in one twenty or thirty years ago, then.

In most areas of the country, it was a big deal if parents -- a family, actually -- came out. It's easy to forget what it was like back then.

But back to this picture. "Discomfiture if not terror on his face"? Really? That's what you see? He looks relaxed to me -- maybe bored with the picture taking process, but he doesn't look tense: look at the way his arms loosely hang down. To me, he has a look that I've seen on childrens' faces at picture-taking sessions at ordinary family gatherings -- the "are we done yet, Mom?" look -- also known as the "can I go and play now look?" or the "why is that man taking another picture?" look.

[David__77]

19. Um, I'd be HORRIFIED if I was the boy, once I was old enough to grasp the controversy.

I mean, if I had a friend in high school who was on the cover of Time sucking on his mom's breast, I would certainly joke a little about it at least once!

[Rex]

23. I do not like the extortion of the child.

For money.