Boges Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 (edited) Grumet, a 26 year-old parenting blogger who is seen offering her nipple to her nearly 4 year-old year-old son Aram on the cover of this week’s Time magazine, is happy to be the newest face of attachment parenting.Attachment parenting is the theory supported by Dr. William Sears, based on the notion that the strong emotional bond forged during early childhood has lifelong benefits. Grumet told Time magazine that she was breast-fed until she was six years-old. “She wasn’t a hippie. Everyone thinks she must have been because we lived in Northern California,” she said. “My dad did go to Berkeley, but he was a nutritional scientist. My parents were really into nutrition, that’s why.” Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/time-magazine-cover-shows-mom-breast-feeding-young-son-jamie-lynn-grumet-practices-attachment-parenting-article-1.1075654#ixzz1uZDoegbH Bet that son gets more action that the mom's husband does. Edited May 11, 2012 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 I didn't read your link, but I've heard that in the "olden days", people used to breast feed their children longer than they do now. A few years old was pretty normal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted May 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 I didn't read your link, but I've heard that in the "olden days", people used to breast feed their children longer than they do now. A few years old was pretty normal. Did you see the cover? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Only in North America could parenting practices that are commonplace by bneccesity in much of the developing world become de rigueur among the privileged. I'm sure there's millions of mothers around the world who'd love the chance to put the goddamned baby down for five goddamned minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted May 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Only in North America could parenting practices that are commonplace by bneccesity in much of the developing world become de rigueur among the privileged. I'm sure there's millions of mothers around the world who'd love the chance to put the goddamned baby down for five goddamned minutes. You mean people breastfeed later because they can't afford actual food for their children? Must suck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted May 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 This kid is almost 4. In Ontario he could go to All-Day Kindergarten. Would he get the breastmilk to go? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 You mean people breastfeed later because they can't afford actual food for their children? Must suck. Breastfeed because they don't have enough food, carry the kids all day because they don't have nannies, sleep with them because they only have one room. Attachment parenting=poverty parenting IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted May 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Breastfeed because they don't have enough food, carry the kids all day because they don't have nannies, sleep with them because they only have one room. Attachment parenting=poverty parenting IMO. At 3/4 you shouldn't have to carry the child much anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 At 3/4 you shouldn't have to carry the child much anymore. I'm aware. Not really the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted May 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 I'm aware. Not really the point. I get it, you're point is the negatvice reaction to this is a First-world problem. Still it's icky. I guess the question with this is that woman using breastfeeding to keep a symbolic leash on their child for as long as possible. It's just another example of helicopter parenting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderfish Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 You mean people breastfeed later because they can't afford actual food for their children? Must suck. Love the pun . The problem I had with the cover wasn't so much the message, but the delivery. It was obviously meant to be controversial, I believe it was supposed to portray confidence, but instead it seemed more like defiance or arrogance. The whole track-suit thing and the kid standing on the chair begging for a suck from his master just seemed to go against the actual act of feeding a kid. I have no problem with breastfeeding, but I think this one missed the mark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 I get it, you're point is the negatvice reaction to this is a First-world problem. Still it's icky. No that wasn't my point at all. I was talking about the phenomenon of attachment parenting and the irony of it being a lifestyle choice for the rich. Did you read the article at all or are you familiar with the concept? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted May 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Can't argue with you on this issue. I'm no expert. But there's a reason the cover is controversial. Cuz it looks icky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNewTeddy Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 When you are old enough to ask for it* you are too old to get it *and I don't mean "baba", I mean "Mummy, can I get some breastfeeding?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Can't argue with you on this issue. I'm no expert. But there's a reason the cover is controversial. Cuz it looks icky. I don't see what all the fuss is about: attachment parenting has been practiced in parts of Westoros for a long time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted May 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 I don't see what all the fuss is about: attachment parenting has been practiced in parts of Westoros for a long time! Yes Kat Stark's sister is totally sane. Mom I'm hungry!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Cuz it looks icky. I think it's mostly icky because it's right out there on the cover of Time magazine. It's way too personal for such a public display. It's a good thing an article on the virtues of using toilet paper isn't so marketable. Not to mention the poor kid who now has to go through school being the guy who breast-fed on the cover of Time when he was four. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted May 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 I think it's mostly icky because it's right out there on the cover of Time magazine. It's way too personal for such a public display. It's a good thing an article on the virtues of using toilet paper isn't so marketable. Not to mention the poor kid who now has to go through school being the guy who breast-fed on the cover of Time when he was four. Which is why I think parents like these are more about their own feelings and vanity than the welfare of their kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Which is why I think parents like these are more about their own feelings and vanity than the welfare of their kids. And what are those feelings? I think that's crossed a few people's minds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 That kid is very very tall for a three year old, and already has a prominent gut. Those do not look at all like lactating breasts to me either. I smell Photoshop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted May 12, 2012 Report Share Posted May 12, 2012 That cover photo is really gross. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted May 12, 2012 Report Share Posted May 12, 2012 It is a reach for celebrity, obviously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted May 13, 2012 Report Share Posted May 13, 2012 That kid is very very tall for a three year old, and already has a prominent gut. Those do not look at all like lactating breasts to me either. I smell Photoshop. It's not a photoshop. The kid is almost 4, and some 4 year olds are tall - or his mother could be on the short side. At any rate, there is another photo of the two from the shoot, along with a few other mothers who still nurse at age 3 or beyond, presented in a slideshow at this link: Behind the Cover: Are You Mom Enough? This issue of Time reminded me of this video of a mother nursing her 7 year old: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 13, 2012 Report Share Posted May 13, 2012 In the early modern period breast milk was used to nurse adults back to health. Sometimes it was even employed for eye conditions. The nursing woman would squeeze a little milk into the eyes of the ailing person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 13, 2012 Report Share Posted May 13, 2012 Like Rose-o-Sharon in the Grapes of Wrath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.