Thank you Time Magazine.
Thank you for starting yet another round of "Mommy Wars". Thank you for making what is a natural, and beautiful process into something seedy and gossip worthy. Thank you for making being a mother just a little bit harder for all of us this particular Mother's Day.
Thank you. And suck my t**.
Will I nurse my children until they are 3, 4, 5, 6 or even 7 years old? No. But I won't do it, because the girls chose to wean themselves. Not because I believe it's gross or wrong. It's not. It's a natural process.
And for anyone who thinks it's "wrong to sexualize a child"- get a grip. There is nothing overtly, or covertly, sexual about nursing a child. Nothing (even if the mother on the cover of Time Magazine was beautiful).
And for anyone who says it's 'unnatural'- well, if it were 'unnatural' there would be a shelf life on how long breasts produce milk after a child is born. There isn't- which means it's not unnatural.
For anyone who says it 'emmasculates' or causes little boys to be effeminate- L.O.L. Seriously. Laughing. Out. Loud. Here's something for you to mull over:
In the Northern communities here in Canada, and surely some parts of Alaska (not to mention third World countries), children are regularly breastfed until they are around 7 years old. Yes. And it is for a practical reason- there is little fresh milk to be had, and what milk is available is simply too expensive to buy. And in third world countries- well, it's all the nourishment those mothers can provide.
Statistically, look at the health and fitness of the grown children in Aboriginal communities who were nursed 'too long'.
Statistically, they have healthier body image, body weight, eating habits and emotional stability than many of the children weaned 'appropriately'.
Not only do many of the young boys of the North West Territories (Nunavut, and Iqaluit too) nurse until they are older, they are nursed that way when the girls are given bottles soon after birth. The Aboriginal women know the benefits (and don't give two shits about the science- since they've done things this way for a thousand years) of nursing the young boys as long as possible. It helps their boys grow stronger, develop solid muscle tone, fight infection, lower rates of cancer, and maintain a good familial bond. It helps their young boys grow into healthy men.
Men who can hunt, fish and trap successfully enough food to see them and their families through another winter. So, yes, naysayers- I guess you're right. Those Northern Aboriginal men are 'femmy'.
Right. I'd put $100 up on the side of a man who hunts to feed his family, against a redneck from Texas (or any damn place at all)- and then just piss myself laughing when the "Indian" out shoots the redneck every time.
Why don't I believe I'll see any of THIS in your article?
Because you are only trying to sensationalize the topic, to make breastfeeding mothers the topic of ridicule (again). Well, forget it, I've just decided I WILL NOT read your article. I won't even read your magazine again. You've managed to take yourselves from being something most consider somewhat 'literary' to being entirely too much like the "Enquirer". Well done Time Magazine.
For the record, out of my three children, my girls were breastfed, and my son was bottle fed. I support whichever way a mother feeds her children. Whether that's boob, bottle, supplementary system or simply rice cereal. To each their own- and bugger anyone who doesn't like it.
And what would I say to anyone who has an opinion on how a mother 'should' be feeding her children? Get. Fucked.