Dr. Phil Discusses Breastfeeding

I was driving home from Zumba — yes, I’ve crossed something off my now-I’m-33-years-old list — and listening to a radio show. The host was discussing Alanis Morisette, who has vowed to continue nursing her son (who shares a Christmas 2010 birthday with Cousin It) for as long as he wants and how weird and bizarre and gross that is.

Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh. Yes, we’re STILL talking about extended nursing and how totes cray-cray it is. The radio show host’s “expert” was Dr. Phil McGraw.

Dr. Phil (Flickr: Greggoconnell)

Since Dr. Phil works in entertainment, and no longer holds a license to practice psychology, I was expecting that he’d jump on board with the whole “breastfeeding past the age of XYZ is not okay”–

– while we’re on the topic of time limits suggested by people who don’t have children or have never nursed, the most eye-rolling one I read is “you should stop breastfeeding when they kid is old enough to ask for it.”

Animal and Mineral didn’t talk much til they were two. And I don’t think they could have said, “Mommy, can we please have breastmilk now?” until at least three. And yet some kids can say it at one-and-a-half — and many children can make the sign for “milk” or “nurse” before the age of one! Suggesting that the right age for weaning has anything to do with when children start talking is ridiculous.

Another one, brought to my attention by Miss Manners is, “when the kid can reach into your shirt.” Have you ever had a baby and nursed it? They can start reaching into your shirt pretty early in the game. Or maybe they’re too polite and never do it. Yet another dumb timeframe.

I digress.

So, Dr. Phil was asked about Alanis’ proclamation and his response was fairly awesome. First he mentioned the health benefits of breastfeeding until age two. He talked about other countries and cultures where breastfeeding til much older than two is the norm, and the risks to children in third-world countries who aren’t breastfed.

Fine, Radio Host says. He reluctantly admits there are benefits to breastfeeding. “But what about sexualizing young children?” This was, of course, the crux of his argument for how gross and inappropriate it is to breastfeed past the age of one.

But Dr. Phil did not take the bait. “To kids, it’s not sexual at all! We see breasts as sexual. Kids don’t.”

GO DR. PHIL! I KIND OF LIKE YOU NOW!

When pushed, he said that his personal opinion is that children should stop breastfeeding by the age of two. However, he added that “there’s not a shred of evidence that suggests that long-term breastfeeding is harmful to a child.”

Do not put food on this plate — I WANT NURSIES FOREVER!

I am hopeful that the millions of listeners will consider Dr. Phil’s words — and maybe give him some credence since his name includes the word DOCTOR — and start subscribing to the idea that breastfeeding is normal. And also, that child-led weaning is normal, and is a natural process.

I have never done child-led weaning — my first three kids were hardly breastfed, unfortunately, due to a variety of reasons; I weaned My Masterpiece so I could have weight-loss surgery when she was 13mo — and I’ll let you all know about it when it happens. In a year or two or four.

Thoughts on the Time Magazine Cover

You know, the cover with the attractive mom nursing a young child who is standing on a chair?

I have no problem with the mom nursing the almost-four-year-old. According to anthropologist Kathryn Dettwyler, the minimum predicted age of weaning around the globe is between 2.5 and 7. I would like Cousin It to nurse until she’s at least 2 years old, per the World Health Organization recommendations. And if she has a choice in the matter, she will probably want to nurse longer.

But the Time Magazine cover. (Wow, I just got distracted finding a photo of it, and ended up reading a diatribe about how 99.9% of women only breastfeed in private and if they’re out somewhere and need to breastfeed then they should do it in private — unless there’s nowhere else to breastfeed, in which case they need to cover up. Unless it’s really hot, in which case it’s okay. So, to sum it up: nobody should breastfeed in public, but if you absolutely have to breastfeed in public, it’s only okay with a cover, unless it’s really hot in which case all bets are off. What the what?!?!?!)

(Credit: time.com)

The good news is, this photograph is “desensitizing” breastfeeding. Even if you disagree with nursing a 3-year-old, you’ve now SEEN a picture of a woman nursing a 3-year-old, and maybe the next time you see a baby of the age that you deem is appropriate for nursing (probably under 1) you won’t think it’s weird or odd or different. That’s the hope.

The ugliest part, I think, is the title: ARE YOU MOM ENOUGH?

I call bull on the cover; it’s just for shock value. In fact, I’m really bothered that Time Magazine is adding still more fuel to the fire that is mommy wars. The title implies that if you’re not nursing a 3-year-old, you are not, in fact, mom ENOUGH. You’re less than. You’re weaker. And that’s just a bunch of crap, in my opinion.

A better title would have been EXTENDED NURSING AND MOTHERING. Or ATTACHMENT MOTHERING: WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU. At least that would have accurately reflected what is inside the magazine AND on the cover. The cover mom is a self-proclaimed AP mom. She nurses, cosleeps and homeschools. No idea her thoughts on vaccinations or eating, but I’m sure she’s pretty crunchy.

Credit: Facebook/Occupy Breastfeeding

At any rate, I don’t think the cover title creates any positive discussion or discourse. It doesn’t bring anything good to moms. It just creates division; division between moms that is already there and is only going to get stronger thanks to stupid phrases like ARE YOU MOM ENOUGH. Soapbox moms will climb up higher; regretful moms will feel more shame — and in the end, the only one who benefits is Time Magazine. They will sell more magazines.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 409 other followers

%d bloggers like this: