Time Magazine's Breastfeeding Cover Controversy

Can someone explain to me what an "elderly toddler" is?

Ha!

I saw this article on Yahoo earlier today and sputtered a bit.

The cover seems manufactured for maximum controversy, from the choice of models (small, slim, "sexy" mother, large 3-year-old) to the pose (who breastfeeds with a kid standing on a step stool? which also made him look larger and older yet) to the clothing (she's in full hair and makeup and little black tank top and slim pants that in a non-breastfeeding context would undoubtedly read "sexy").

Plus this whole thing is about oooh Dr. Sears big new thing omigosh when in an article (forget which one, I couldn't read the whole Time article without registering but there were various related things that were available) the mother says that she was herself breastfed until age sex. So it's not so new as all that.

Anyway, the article itself may prove to be fine and even-handed, that's certainly happened before that a decent article gets the full shock treatment for the cover. But the cover really seems designed to get everyone's dander up.

I find it weird, but at the same time I find the statements about how it is "offensive" to be far more objectionable than anything in the image titself.

A
R
T

A
R
Tee he he hehe

<snork>

OMG.

Six.

Six.

If "extended breastfeeding" turns out to be what makes kids never act like assholes again, Time magazine will look brilliant for this cover.

At the moment... the kid, the mom, and Time magazine look like assholes

Can't quite get my mind around how a three-year-old is an asshole for doing what his mom wants him to do. (Both breastfeeding and going to the photo shoot.)

Not "is"... "looks like". And certainly not by his own doing

I thought the kid must be at least six looking at the photo at first. I do back breast feeding. In fact, I was breast fed. I don't know what's too old, but I would say the kid in the picture is beyond that.

It's meant to be a play on "Are you man enough" I think...so I think part of the image is meant to play on a tough looking man.

I do find breast feeding a kid at that age a bit confronting....I've seen documentaries on mothers in England who do it....instinctively I think it's OTT....but I'd be interested to see research into the results of that kind of parenting.

It's fascinating listening to kids who can talk about how they feel about breast feeding, though!

I guess at least the cover is going to stimulate discussion.

I'm a little pertubed with the cover, I haven 't read the article, but I was breastfed and I did breastfeed my two kids for 6 months and I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the benefits of breastfeeding are pretty much gone after the age of 2.

I read it fast (forget what clued me in, google, huffpo, slate? fairly short and perjorative-y, so I gather not the whole Time article) but I've some biases against very long term (how much?) breast feeding, while liking it as healthy overall in the first place.
I thought I read the kid is/was? four. But never trust me.

They'll put anything on the cover to sell magazines.

I think it's not that the benefits are completely gone, more that it's most important in those first couple of years. (MOST important at the very beginning, then still important but less so, etc.)

Plus there's a ratio thing -- 0-6 month-olds can be exclusively breastfed (nothing else), while that's not healthy for a 3-year-old I don't think.

Osso, I saw somewhere that the kid was nearing his 4th birthday, but it didn't say how near. (I had the impression that it was a few months.) So still three, but close to four.

What Rosborne said.

That cover is obviously intended to be nothing more (nor less) than an attention-getter. Carefully posed, mom carefully coifed and cosmeticized, the whole composition meant to deliver a mild shock. Hay,look at me!

I don't find it offensive. I do find it somewhat bizarre.

Yup. They're trolling anyone who's ever had an opinion about breastfeeding.

That's pretty much what it looks like to me... If you want a kid to grow up to be a homosexual you should just teach him to play soccer like everybody else does.

My information is old information - not sure if it stands up now at all - that it was key to have the babe nurse at least until the child's thymus kicked in (probably re antibody production on his or her own), and that was around six months.

The business re attachment I get - certainly early on - but tend to oof, what? later on. Don't know enough to pick a time, but I'm most comfortable with babyness and not advanced toddler time. And so what, not for me to say, just impressions.