Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Time Magazine's cover of a woman breastfeeding a three-year-old

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/time-breastfeeding-cover-sparks-immediate-controversy-151539970.html

 

So, I get that breastfeeding is natural and I believe it is a personal choice.  I did not breastfeed any of my children because I wasn't comfortable and because it wasn't somethin I was able to do with my first two.  My first was born four weeks early and she wasn't able to latch on so she had to have a bottle.  I pumped for her for two months, but never actually breastfed.  My second was born with pneumonia and couldn't eat for his first two days of life.  He was on an IV instead.  I pumped while he wasn't eating and saved those bottles and then continued pumping but my supply was gone after two weeks because I couldn't keep up with him.  He was eating 8 oz halfway through his first week of life!  My newest baby had no interest in it and I just didn't have much of an interest either.  It's just not a comfortable thing for me and my other children were never sick and are very bright.  I buy only organic formula (without the brown rice syrup) and baby foods so as to avoid pesticides and antibiotics and growth hormones, but do not breastfeed.  However, I do not have issues with mothers who do.  Why would I?  I will admit that sometimes I feel uncomfortable when I encounter a mother doing it in public, but not too bad if they are covered up.  This Time cover is creepy, though.  At what age should you STOP breastfeeding?  I would think that when the baby has teeth and is eating solids you should stop.  Reading about true crimes I have found that statistics show that canibalism in murderers is more common when the child was breastfed for an extended amount of time.  Crazy!  I, also, just think it's creepy and I don't think I'm alone.  But, also, what about the video of Salma Hayek breastfeeding the baby in Sierra Leone?  That is bizarre in my opinion.  What are your thoughts on this article, photo, and video? 

by on May. 10, 2012 at 2:54 PM
Replies (201-210):
LoveMyLilPeople
by on May. 12, 2012 at 12:13 AM
1 mom liked this


Quoting Angeldolphine:

Well, a baby should have either formula or breastmilk until a year, so I definatly would not stop breastfeeding until then, because I am not about to stop breastfeeding in exchange for formula. Solids don't provide all the nutrition needed until a year, especially the jarred baby food.

As for the video, obviously it is for humor and it's used to make fun of those who do exstended breastfeeding. I see the humor but I find it insulting at the same time.

As for the Times cover, I find nothing wrong with breastfeeding a three year old. I hope to go that long. I definatly want to go to two and if I go to three, no big deal. Mainly for the immunity protection. My body makes antibodies in response to my baby's saliva, so it IS important to still breastfeed from the breast. I also like that I don't have to worry about a picky toddler since they go through those stages of not eating or only eating certain things. If I do it past two, it will only be at bedtime and naps. BTW, other mammals nurse until the milk teeth start to fall out, so biologically we are meant to nurse until 4-7 years old.   I would not be nursing in public though, because there is no need. An older baby can wait until I get home. A young baby can not wait and it's not a good idea to pump for a young baby.  I think that needs to be more widely accepted and promoted. Otherwise a mother feels she just has to stay at home. I also think that breastfed babies should have the same rights as bottle fed babies.

I'd like to know what studies show that cannabalism in murders where the murderer was breastfeed. I don't believe that.

BTW, just so you know an 8oz breastmilk bottle is way over feeding a breastfed baby. Breastmilk adapts in fat and nutrient content, so a baby does not need bottles more then three ounces (ocassionally four ounces). They will take it though because they can't control the flow of the bottle. Also, it takes time for their stomachs to catch up. In his first week, his stomach is only the size of a golfball, marble when born, so his stomach was majorly stretched out. They do breastfeed often, like sometimes every hour. Perhaps someone was trying to get you to get him to go longer or something. That's not your fault though, somebody gave you very poor information. I bet he spit up a whole lot. Your supply was not gone, you just regulated for what he actually needed, which is 1-1.5 ounces per hour.


I can't respond to all of this right now, but I will respond to the cannibal thing... I admitted that I don't think that there are enough cannibals in modern times to be able to accurately make any kind of prediction about what causes it.  I read it in some book about serial killers and cult killers... I don't necessarily agree with that statement, though, I was just saying that that was one of the first things I had ever read about people breastfeeding for longer than the average one year.  So, it kind of prejudiced me, I think. 

kailu1835
by Ruby Member on May. 12, 2012 at 12:27 AM

 Do you mean the video?  The article is about a mom and her 3 year old.  I didn't watch the video.  I know a mother who induced breastmilk to feed her 3 month old adopted daughter, but when the child is already 3 it seems a bit odd to me, but then that's just because I wouldn't personally do it.  I won't judge her for breastfeeding her adopted child.

I did have to laugh at this part though: "I would be way more impressed with Time if they put a mom on the cover in the typical age bracket of 'attachment parenting,'" Salon's Irin Carmon tweeted. "Not a 26-year-old."

Just what age bracket is AP allowed?

Quoting LoveMyLilPeople:

 

Quoting kailu1835:

 People who think breastfeeding toddlers is wrong are being very ethnocentric.  They believe that the way THEY do it is the only right way.  Babies should be weaned when mother and child are BOTH ready, whenever that happens to be.  I know people whose children did not wean completely until 4 years old.  In many cultures this is the case.

I get that many people cannot breastfeed for whatever reason, or purposefully set out not to.  That's fine, but they don't have the right to complain about those who do, for however long they do.  Breastfeeding a toddler most definitely does not cause them psychological problems, and has a lot of benefits.    All babies/toddlers wean themselves when they're ready.  Those moms that are still feeding their 7 year olds are doing so because they (mom) didn't want it to end and kept it going even though the child showed signs of stopping.  It is about pro-choice.  It is about choosing what you're going to do with your breasts AND your child.

I agree with you... it does seem wrong to me for a mother to breastfeed a seven-year-old.  At that age they are going to school and making friendships and becoming a person independant of their family.  It just seems highly inappropriate.  However, breastfeeding is a choice and what someone does with that choice is up to them. 

What do you make of the mother in this article, though?  Breastfeeding a child that she adopted that had already been weaned.  To this child she was a virtual stranger and the child probably wasn't ever breastfed.  Then she brings him into her home and stuffs her breast in his mouth?  She adopted him two years ago... which means he was three when she adopted him.  Colostrum is the most important part of breast milk and a baby gets that in the first couple of months... this child didn't get that.  I used to help teach a pre-school class with three and four-year-olds.  I know what personalities they already had.  It seems strange to me to start breastfeeding a child that is already capable of being shy with strangers and has already formed some ideas about the world....

 

babiesbabybaby development

kailu1835
by Ruby Member on May. 12, 2012 at 12:32 AM

 lol... she said she wasn't mom enough to take the bait, then took the bait.

Quoting Momniscient:

:)

I really like Lisa Belkins commentary on this

 

Lisa Belkin


GET UPDATES FROM Lisa Belkin

No. I Am Not Mom Enough.

Posted: 05/10/2012 4:56 pm

No. I am not Mom enough.

Not as TIME magazine seems to define it on their outrageous cover today. The one showing the willowy bombshell of a mother, staring defiantly at the camera, while her 3-year-old son stands on a chair next to her, the better to suckle at her exposed breast.

I am not Mom enough to take the bait. To accept TIME's deliberate provocation and either get mad at this woman for what I think I know about her from this photo, or to feel inferior, or superior, or defensive, or guilty -- or anything at all, if it means I am comparing myself to other mothers.

I am not Mom enough to think that the debate over how to feed our youngest children -- an important and nuanced conversation about nutrition, and workplace policy, and government responsibility, and gender relationships -- can be boiled down to a simplistic, unrepresentative, staged photograph.

The breastfeeding conversation is not titillating. The TIME cover is.

Breastfeeding is not a macho test of motherhood, with the winner being the one who nurses the longest. In fact there ARE no macho tests of motherhood. Motherhood is -- should be -- a village, where we explore each other's choices, learn from them, respect them, and then go off and make our own.

Women who breastfeed their children for three years are outliers, but they are not spectacles, and we shouldn't hold them up as either Madonnas or freaks. Women who do not breastfeed are not monsters, and we should not condemn them, or really have any opinion about their decision at all.

TIME wanted attention. They have gotten it. And the shame of it is that the article accompanying the photo and headline has moments of nuanced exploration of the global social questions raised by the attachment theory of parenting. "The arguments for and against," author Kate Pickett writes, "mirror questions about family and work that still divide America five decades after the advent of modern feminism, when nearly half the U.S. workforce is made up of women."

So, let's talk about that. But let's not wrap it in the tired trope of my-way-is-better-than-yours and parenting-means-choosing-a-camp and cool-we-can-put-a-breast-on-our-cover-if-we-say-it's-a-social-schism.

I refuse to see either a heroine or an extremist in TIME's cover photo. I won't condemn her or praise her. I will not stoop to the level of pretending that we are so unidimensional that we can be divided by a lifestyle choice.

I am not Mom enough.

Follow Lisa Belkin on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/lisabelkin

Quoting LauraKW:

 Best answer in the entire post.

Quoting Momniscient:

Don't care.

Just another pawn in the mommy wars. For either end of the spectrum. 

 


 

babiesbabybaby development

LauraKW
by "Dude!" on May. 12, 2012 at 12:36 AM
1 mom liked this

 For some reason, seeing your name and the word "bait" has made me want to go crabbing.  I don't mean that in a derogatory way - your name looks like it is of Hawaiian origin.

Quoting kailu1835:

 lol... she said she wasn't mom enough to take the bait, then took the bait.

Quoting Momniscient:

:)

I really like Lisa Belkins commentary on this

 

Lisa Belkin


GET UPDATES FROM Lisa Belkin

No. I Am Not Mom Enough.

Posted: 05/10/2012 4:56 pm

No. I am not Mom enough.

Not as TIME magazine seems to define it on their outrageous cover today. The one showing the willowy bombshell of a mother, staring defiantly at the camera, while her 3-year-old son stands on a chair next to her, the better to suckle at her exposed breast.

I am not Mom enough to take the bait. To accept TIME's deliberate provocation and either get mad at this woman for what I think I know about her from this photo, or to feel inferior, or superior, or defensive, or guilty -- or anything at all, if it means I am comparing myself to other mothers.

I am not Mom enough to think that the debate over how to feed our youngest children -- an important and nuanced conversation about nutrition, and workplace policy, and government responsibility, and gender relationships -- can be boiled down to a simplistic, unrepresentative, staged photograph.

The breastfeeding conversation is not titillating. The TIME cover is.

Breastfeeding is not a macho test of motherhood, with the winner being the one who nurses the longest. In fact there ARE no macho tests of motherhood. Motherhood is -- should be -- a village, where we explore each other's choices, learn from them, respect them, and then go off and make our own.

Women who breastfeed their children for three years are outliers, but they are not spectacles, and we shouldn't hold them up as either Madonnas or freaks. Women who do not breastfeed are not monsters, and we should not condemn them, or really have any opinion about their decision at all.

TIME wanted attention. They have gotten it. And the shame of it is that the article accompanying the photo and headline has moments of nuanced exploration of the global social questions raised by the attachment theory of parenting. "The arguments for and against," author Kate Pickett writes, "mirror questions about family and work that still divide America five decades after the advent of modern feminism, when nearly half the U.S. workforce is made up of women."

So, let's talk about that. But let's not wrap it in the tired trope of my-way-is-better-than-yours and parenting-means-choosing-a-camp and cool-we-can-put-a-breast-on-our-cover-if-we-say-it's-a-social-schism.

I refuse to see either a heroine or an extremist in TIME's cover photo. I won't condemn her or praise her. I will not stoop to the level of pretending that we are so unidimensional that we can be divided by a lifestyle choice.

I am not Mom enough.

Follow Lisa Belkin on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/lisabelkin

Quoting LauraKW:

 Best answer in the entire post.

Quoting Momniscient:

Don't care.

Just another pawn in the mommy wars. For either end of the spectrum. 

 


 

 

Momniscient
by Ruby Member on May. 12, 2012 at 12:37 AM

How so? By blogging about it?

What part of her not villifying nor beatifying the woman on the cover is 'taking the bait?'

Or is it that she was responding to Time Magazines use of that woman as a pawn?

Quoting kailu1835:

 lol... she said she wasn't mom enough to take the bait, then took the bait.

Quoting Momniscient:

:)

I really like Lisa Belkins commentary on this


Lisa Belkin


GET UPDATES FROM Lisa Belkin

No. I Am Not Mom Enough.

Posted: 05/10/2012 4:56 pm

No. I am not Mom enough.

Not as TIME magazine seems to define it on their outrageous cover today. The one showing the willowy bombshell of a mother, staring defiantly at the camera, while her 3-year-old son stands on a chair next to her, the better to suckle at her exposed breast.

I am not Mom enough to take the bait. To accept TIME's deliberate provocation and either get mad at this woman for what I think I know about her from this photo, or to feel inferior, or superior, or defensive, or guilty -- or anything at all, if it means I am comparing myself to other mothers.

I am not Mom enough to think that the debate over how to feed our youngest children -- an important and nuanced conversation about nutrition, and workplace policy, and government responsibility, and gender relationships -- can be boiled down to a simplistic, unrepresentative, staged photograph.

The breastfeeding conversation is not titillating. The TIME cover is.

Breastfeeding is not a macho test of motherhood, with the winner being the one who nurses the longest. In fact there ARE no macho tests of motherhood. Motherhood is -- should be -- a village, where we explore each other's choices, learn from them, respect them, and then go off and make our own.

Women who breastfeed their children for three years are outliers, but they are not spectacles, and we shouldn't hold them up as either Madonnas or freaks. Women who do not breastfeed are not monsters, and we should not condemn them, or really have any opinion about their decision at all.

TIME wanted attention. They have gotten it. And the shame of it is that the article accompanying the photo and headline has moments of nuanced exploration of the global social questions raised by the attachment theory of parenting. "The arguments for and against," author Kate Pickett writes, "mirror questions about family and work that still divide America five decades after the advent of modern feminism, when nearly half the U.S. workforce is made up of women."

So, let's talk about that. But let's not wrap it in the tired trope of my-way-is-better-than-yours and parenting-means-choosing-a-camp and cool-we-can-put-a-breast-on-our-cover-if-we-say-it's-a-social-schism.

I refuse to see either a heroine or an extremist in TIME's cover photo. I won't condemn her or praise her. I will not stoop to the level of pretending that we are so unidimensional that we can be divided by a lifestyle choice.

I am not Mom enough.

Follow Lisa Belkin on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/lisabelkin

Quoting LauraKW:

 Best answer in the entire post.

Quoting Momniscient:

Don't care.

Just another pawn in the mommy wars. For either end of the spectrum. 

 


 



Ireallydontcare
by Member on May. 12, 2012 at 12:43 AM

What a load of BS.

mommychelle01
by Bronze Member on May. 12, 2012 at 12:43 AM
I guess what bothers me is that your opinion is an uneducated opinion. Why wouldn't you WANT to be educated on the issue? As a mom, I would think before you ever gave birth, you would have researched both options and made an educated decision.

There's a lot of topics on this forum that I skip over because I'm not educated enough to comment on it. So it seems silly for someone to attempt to debate an issue that they clearly don't know much about.


Quoting Citygirlk:

Why is it so wrong of me to think that breastfeeding after two is weird? I never said that moms dhouldnt do it I just find it odd cause to me thats something that is done for babys and once you are able to eat most table foods it isnt needed. Sorry if im not one of those moms that find it normal ive never seen anyone do it before and the only image I have in my head is of that movie.



Quoting mommychelle01:

All of these examples are irrelevant and irrational.





Please spend time on google and educate yourself about breastfeeding a little more, then come back for a more logical debate. :)






Quoting Citygirlk:

So I guess I should go find my mom and start beastfeeding again so I could drop the viatmins (which come from nature but are put into pill form to make taking them easier).







I said that bonding meaning that type you can still bond with your child without having to breastfeed them at the same time.







There is research saying that abortion leads to breast cancer should I believe that too?







just so you know im not against it I just finf it werid is all I couldnt imagine my boys at 3 still breastfeeding walking up to me asking for milk and sucking at my breast to me they are just to old for that its like putting a 3 year old in an infanint swing and expecting them to fall asleep kwim.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
areid1023
by Silver Member on May. 12, 2012 at 12:52 AM

you dont think that her opening statement showed a clear bias on the matter?

"Not as TIME magazine seems to define it on their outrageous cover today. The one showing the willowy bombshell of a mother, staring defiantly at the camera, while her 3-year-old son stands on a chair next to her, the better to suckle at her exposed breast."

Quoting Momniscient:

How so? By blogging about it?

What part of her not villifying nor beatifying the woman on the cover is 'taking the bait?'

Or is it that she was responding to Time Magazines use of that woman as a pawn?

Quoting kailu1835:

 lol... she said she wasn't mom enough to take the bait, then took the bait.

Quoting Momniscient:

:)

I really like Lisa Belkins commentary on this


Lisa Belkin


GET UPDATES FROM Lisa Belkin

No. I Am Not Mom Enough.

Posted: 05/10/2012 4:56 pm

No. I am not Mom enough.

Not as TIME magazine seems to define it on their outrageous cover today. The one showing the willowy bombshell of a mother, staring defiantly at the camera, while her 3-year-old son stands on a chair next to her, the better to suckle at her exposed breast.

I am not Mom enough to take the bait. To accept TIME's deliberate provocation and either get mad at this woman for what I think I know about her from this photo, or to feel inferior, or superior, or defensive, or guilty -- or anything at all, if it means I am comparing myself to other mothers.

I am not Mom enough to think that the debate over how to feed our youngest children -- an important and nuanced conversation about nutrition, and workplace policy, and government responsibility, and gender relationships -- can be boiled down to a simplistic, unrepresentative, staged photograph.

The breastfeeding conversation is not titillating. The TIME cover is.

Breastfeeding is not a macho test of motherhood, with the winner being the one who nurses the longest. In fact there ARE no macho tests of motherhood. Motherhood is -- should be -- a village, where we explore each other's choices, learn from them, respect them, and then go off and make our own.

Women who breastfeed their children for three years are outliers, but they are not spectacles, and we shouldn't hold them up as either Madonnas or freaks. Women who do not breastfeed are not monsters, and we should not condemn them, or really have any opinion about their decision at all.

TIME wanted attention. They have gotten it. And the shame of it is that the article accompanying the photo and headline has moments of nuanced exploration of the global social questions raised by the attachment theory of parenting. "The arguments for and against," author Kate Pickett writes, "mirror questions about family and work that still divide America five decades after the advent of modern feminism, when nearly half the U.S. workforce is made up of women."

So, let's talk about that. But let's not wrap it in the tired trope of my-way-is-better-than-yours and parenting-means-choosing-a-camp and cool-we-can-put-a-breast-on-our-cover-if-we-say-it's-a-social-schism.

I refuse to see either a heroine or an extremist in TIME's cover photo. I won't condemn her or praise her. I will not stoop to the level of pretending that we are so unidimensional that we can be divided by a lifestyle choice.

I am not Mom enough.

Follow Lisa Belkin on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/lisabelkin

Quoting LauraKW:

 Best answer in the entire post.

Quoting Momniscient:

Don't care.

Just another pawn in the mommy wars. For either end of the spectrum. 

 


 



 my little bug! 11-29-08

Momniscient
by Ruby Member on May. 12, 2012 at 12:53 AM

Not really.

It is a very staged and 'defiant' shot of someone just daring you to object to her or inviting you to worship her.

The author refused to do either.

Quoting areid1023:

you dont think that her opening statement showed a clear bias on the matter?

"Not as TIME magazine seems to define it on their outrageous cover today. The one showing the willowy bombshell of a mother, staring defiantly at the camera, while her 3-year-old son stands on a chair next to her, the better to suckle at her exposed breast."

Quoting Momniscient:

How so? By blogging about it?

What part of her not villifying nor beatifying the woman on the cover is 'taking the bait?'

Or is it that she was responding to Time Magazines use of that woman as a pawn?

Quoting kailu1835:

 lol... she said she wasn't mom enough to take the bait, then took the bait.

Quoting Momniscient:

:)

I really like Lisa Belkins commentary on this


Lisa Belkin


GET UPDATES FROM Lisa Belkin

No. I Am Not Mom Enough.

Posted: 05/10/2012 4:56 pm

No. I am not Mom enough.

Not as TIME magazine seems to define it on their outrageous cover today. The one showing the willowy bombshell of a mother, staring defiantly at the camera, while her 3-year-old son stands on a chair next to her, the better to suckle at her exposed breast.

I am not Mom enough to take the bait. To accept TIME's deliberate provocation and either get mad at this woman for what I think I know about her from this photo, or to feel inferior, or superior, or defensive, or guilty -- or anything at all, if it means I am comparing myself to other mothers.

I am not Mom enough to think that the debate over how to feed our youngest children -- an important and nuanced conversation about nutrition, and workplace policy, and government responsibility, and gender relationships -- can be boiled down to a simplistic, unrepresentative, staged photograph.

The breastfeeding conversation is not titillating. The TIME cover is.

Breastfeeding is not a macho test of motherhood, with the winner being the one who nurses the longest. In fact there ARE no macho tests of motherhood. Motherhood is -- should be -- a village, where we explore each other's choices, learn from them, respect them, and then go off and make our own.

Women who breastfeed their children for three years are outliers, but they are not spectacles, and we shouldn't hold them up as either Madonnas or freaks. Women who do not breastfeed are not monsters, and we should not condemn them, or really have any opinion about their decision at all.

TIME wanted attention. They have gotten it. And the shame of it is that the article accompanying the photo and headline has moments of nuanced exploration of the global social questions raised by the attachment theory of parenting. "The arguments for and against," author Kate Pickett writes, "mirror questions about family and work that still divide America five decades after the advent of modern feminism, when nearly half the U.S. workforce is made up of women."

So, let's talk about that. But let's not wrap it in the tired trope of my-way-is-better-than-yours and parenting-means-choosing-a-camp and cool-we-can-put-a-breast-on-our-cover-if-we-say-it's-a-social-schism.

I refuse to see either a heroine or an extremist in TIME's cover photo. I won't condemn her or praise her. I will not stoop to the level of pretending that we are so unidimensional that we can be divided by a lifestyle choice.

I am not Mom enough.

Follow Lisa Belkin on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/lisabelkin

Quoting LauraKW:

 Best answer in the entire post.

Quoting Momniscient:

Don't care.

Just another pawn in the mommy wars. For either end of the spectrum. 

 


 





LoveMyLilPeople
by on May. 12, 2012 at 8:48 AM


Quoting kailu1835:

 Do you mean the video?  The article is about a mom and her 3 year old.  I didn't watch the video.  I know a mother who induced breastmilk to feed her 3 month old adopted daughter, but when the child is already 3 it seems a bit odd to me, but then that's just because I wouldn't personally do it.  I won't judge her for breastfeeding her adopted child.

I did have to laugh at this part though: "I would be way more impressed with Time if they put a mom on the cover in the typical age bracket of 'attachment parenting,'" Salon's Irin Carmon tweeted. "Not a 26-year-old."

Just what age bracket is AP allowed?

Quoting LoveMyLilPeople:

 

Quoting kailu1835:

 People who think breastfeeding toddlers is wrong are being very ethnocentric.  They believe that the way THEY do it is the only right way.  Babies should be weaned when mother and child are BOTH ready, whenever that happens to be.  I know people whose children did not wean completely until 4 years old.  In many cultures this is the case.

I get that many people cannot breastfeed for whatever reason, or purposefully set out not to.  That's fine, but they don't have the right to complain about those who do, for however long they do.  Breastfeeding a toddler most definitely does not cause them psychological problems, and has a lot of benefits.    All babies/toddlers wean themselves when they're ready.  Those moms that are still feeding their 7 year olds are doing so because they (mom) didn't want it to end and kept it going even though the child showed signs of stopping.  It is about pro-choice.  It is about choosing what you're going to do with your breasts AND your child.

I agree with you... it does seem wrong to me for a mother to breastfeed a seven-year-old.  At that age they are going to school and making friendships and becoming a person independant of their family.  It just seems highly inappropriate.  However, breastfeeding is a choice and what someone does with that choice is up to them. 

What do you make of the mother in this article, though?  Breastfeeding a child that she adopted that had already been weaned.  To this child she was a virtual stranger and the child probably wasn't ever breastfed.  Then she brings him into her home and stuffs her breast in his mouth?  She adopted him two years ago... which means he was three when she adopted him.  Colostrum is the most important part of breast milk and a baby gets that in the first couple of months... this child didn't get that.  I used to help teach a pre-school class with three and four-year-olds.  I know what personalities they already had.  It seems strange to me to start breastfeeding a child that is already capable of being shy with strangers and has already formed some ideas about the world....

 

Yeah, she says in the article that she also breastfeeds her five-year-old adopted son and that she adopted him in 2010.  She also says that some people react strongly to the pictures of her breastfeeding him that you can apparently see in her blog, but she thinks it has less to do with the fact that she was breastfeeding a child who when he came into her home she was a virtual stranger and more about the fact that he's black.  I certainly didn't have issue with him being black, but it is odd whether she likes it or not to push that on a child who hasn't grown up that way and doesn't know her. 

I didn't read that last thing you were talking about because I don't use Twitter, but I don't understand that comment either.  Mothers aren't all over the age of thirty. 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN