Letters to the Editor
-
This is a textbook example of a toddler who rules the household.
Does the toddler need to nurse or has the behavior become a nightly ritual he clings to? I suspect it's the latter, in which case it shows a weakness on the parent's part to set limits. The author boasts that she's adept at denying her son things that he wants, but that breastfeeding constitutes a "connection he still seems to need." Woodburn concedes it's not a physical need but rather an emotional one.
This quaint depiction is nothing more than a self-serving rationalization. The need is for routine, not breastfeeding. Toddlers cling to routine, ritualizing every aspect of daily life from getting dressed in the morning to reading that last story before bed. He doesn't have an emotional need to breastfeed any more than he has an emotional need to wear his favorite Elmo shirt every day of the week. The needs for routine and predictability stem from the toddler's budding sense of independence; routine makes him feel in control. Conversely, disruption to a routine makes him feel out of control. But this isn't an excuse to satisfy each of your child's ritualistic whims. Doing so sets a very poor precedent.
You can respect a toddler's independence without giving him your breasts on demand, which incidentally doesn't seem like a fair proposition when the author concedes that her job requires some amount of travel. Change the routine. It's as easy as that. Yes, it will be tough sledding while the child adapts to the new routine. So I guess if the author is lazy and indulgent, then this isn't the solution for her.
-
A fun way to quit
I nursed both my children until they were 2 1/2. When I decided it was time to quit I just told them they'd drank it all up! And that worked. They still looked fondly at Mama's breasts for many months and remembered the comfort they felt which turned into cuddle time at bedtime and early mornings. But when I told them they "Drank it all up" they seemed to feel a pride of accomplishment. There is nothing more trance inducing (for the child) than nursing, it seems to be far more than sustenance.
I lived in Sweden during my first child's nursing and was very supported by the culture. Many mothers kept nursing for a long time, a few until their kids went off to elementary school to no obvious detriment.
Also I have a family story about nursing--my grandfather grew up in rural Korea on a farm and as a favored youngest son nursed until age 5 or 6 and still as an old man remembers it fondly. I also had comments from an elderly woman who once saw me nursing, that she still remembers being nursed as a young girl and the warm feeling it still gives her.
-
"It would be lovely for him if he remembered."
Is there a single male reader out there who would like to come forward and say that they regret not having memories of breast feeding? Personally, I am very happy that nature's plan determined to schedule breastfeeding during a stage of development that I am not able to recall.
The miracle of birth is surely a beautiful and magical experience that no parent wants to forget, but I think it is probably for the best that we do not retain memories of emerging from our mothers' birth canals.
-
There is a reason why we are squicked by this
Okay, I am going to go out on a limb here. Flame away O Momy Warriors!
First of let me say that I am a firm believer in co-sleeping, breastfeeding, slings and attachment parenting in general. These are all good things for babies.
Babies, folks. Babies. A two year old, a three year old, a four year old.... a THIRTY SEVEN YEAR OLD (fer chrissakes!) are *not* babies.
This, I am sorry to say, is where good "Mommying" starts to cross over into fetish and narcissism. Let's not delude ourselves: It is no longer about what is good for the baby; it is instead a release for the mother who needs to be the center of somebody's universe, who needs to be in control, who needs to be needed, who needs to be the big deal. Mother birds drop their babies out of the nest so that they can fly. The natural course of human emotional development is to start moving AWAY from the mother and toward independence and self-identity. This is about being able to function in the world. Growth is sometimes difficult, but good parenting means encouraging the child, not smothering him.
The primary value of breastmilk is in the first six months-- after that, no, actually, there is no evidence at all that it is beneficial for the child.
Co-sleeping is deeply comforting for babies who *can't* do anything for themselves, and it makes nightfeedings easier when babies are at that stage when they need nightly feedings. After a certain age, you might call it a dubious lifestyle choice, but it certainly is not about encouraging the child's development. It serves no purpose, and, yep, it does cause one to wonder what the parents are getting off on.
Slings are GREAT for carrying around a baby and leaving one's hands free to work, but let's not get mental here: a child that can walk does not need to be a sling or in constant contact with Mommy.
I saw a family photo recently posted on the website the comic strip artist known as "Hathor Cow Goddess" in which she was carrying around what appeared to be a five year old child in a sling, and really had to wonder. (Well I had already begun to wonder given her habit for projecting her own thoughts and convictions onto the baby portrayed in her comic strip). Is this sort of thing really about the child? Or is this about the mother's neediness, desire for control, and fear of letting go and maybe (gasp) being less than a "goddess"? Let the kid grow up already!
-
Another dumb article (and discussion) about Breast Feeding
This does seem like ground that has been firmly trodden over by other Salon authors and posters. Gee, is Ayelet Waldman off for vacation or something?
Personally, I think Ms. Woodburn is a nutcase who can't say "no" to a spoiled four year old, or get her son to fall asleep without as she says "an hour long struggle". You have to wonder how well she is doing in the self-discipline/training aspect of other developmental behavior: I'd bet my last nickel that this kid isn't fully toilet trained either.
Hey, speaking of that: Salon, I think I have discovered an buried treasure here. You can replace the repetitious articles about long-time breastfeeding with NEW articles about people who simply will not potty train their toddlers, and hence have them in diapers until the age of 4 or 5. It will be great, since it's probably the same crew of people who can write about this.
Seriously, I actually do know moms who have had children in diapers (Pampers et al, they have actually had to manufacture increasingly larger diapers over the years to meet the demand for this!) until the age of five, and literally until about one week before kindergarten (where they won't take your child unless he/she is fully potty trained). The exact same rational was expressed to me by the moms involved with this: they couldn't "make" Junior use the toilet, he didn't "want to", it was easier to just use diapers, it was kinda fun to continue having a "baby" who requires this kind of care, it much easier to use a diaper than cope with "accidents" and so on.
I also love the way that behavior in impoverished Third World countries is always dragged in: Hey, if a mother in famine ridden Sub-Saharan Africa can breast feed for four years, then damn it, so can a mother in suburban Ohio. That makes perfect sense. You can also raise your kids on rice or gruel or insects, and never get them immunized, and watch them die of diarrhea unnecessarily at the age of 3 because there is no clean water. Why not? People have done exactly this for hundreds of thousands of years! That justifies anything!
The reality is that those Third World moms (and moms from Caveman times onward) would happily have weaned their babies at one year or earlier if they had our wonderful supplies of fresh water, clean healthy food, adequate medical care, and a reasonable expectation that their children would live to adulthood.
I'd like to remind every sympathetic "let's breastfeed 4-ever" nutcase out there that all of us went to school with a handful of pathetic, whiny dependant kids who were "momma's boys (or girls), who were still overly dependant on their mothers (sometimes long into adolescence, even adulthood), whose behavior is typically selfish and childish....and I would bet my last nickel that those kids were breastfed long past the norm, as well as kept in diapers long past the norm. I am sure they all had "wonderful memories" of babyish behavior, that became their own sense of "normal" and which prevented them from becoming independent, mature, developmentally grown up adults. (Ladies, if you have ever dated anyone like this, you will know exactly what I mean!)
And on the low point of Ms. Woodburn's article, let's agree (and I mean Salon editors) to just declare at least a one year moratorium on ANY articles about breastfeeding.