Quote:

---

It's hard to avoid staring at the cover of Time Magazine this week. If you're on social media like Twitter and Facebook, the widely shared image may have arrived on your screen before you ever saw it in the supermarket.

The provocative cover shows Jamie Lynne Grumet, a 26-year-old mother from Los Angeles, breast-feeding her son. This isn't your typical mom-and-baby shot: Grumet's son is 3. In case you were wondering, Grumet told CNN's Erin Burnett that her son is actually breast-feeding in that now-iconic image.

Grumet said her own mother breast-fed her until age 6, and Grumet still remembers it. "I'm proud of her," Grumet said.

The picture promotes an article about the growing popularity of "attachment parenting", a theory first advocated by Dr. Bill Sears and his wife, Martha, in their 1992 best-selling guide “The Baby Book.”

The Searses argue that co-sleeping, “baby wearing” (where the baby is attached to the parent with a sling) and extended breast-feeding will help parents respond better to the individual needs of their babies.

Many moms and dads have strong opinions about these practices, especially the breast-feeding advice. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends babies be breast-fed exclusively for the first six months of their lives.

"We don't all nurse older kids," Bialik said of mothers who subscribe to attachment parenting ideas. "But the notion that a child's voice matters, that every child is different, that's the basis of attachment parenting."
....
Grumet said that sleeping with her baby does not affect intimacy with her husband.

"I think intimacy is extremely important in a marriage and I think a strong marriage is going to be a great foundation to show your children how to be raised confident and happy and I had that with my family, too," she said. http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/10/breastfeeding-too-much-of-a-g
ood-thing/?hpt=hp_c1 find that thing about intimacy with her husband very interesting, and it makes me curious...

Quote:

---

Young Conservative “media activist” Jason Mattera has given us a glimpse into the not so bright future of Conservatism.

He recently gave himself some publicity by posting some highly edited video on YouTube of himself questioning Minnesota Senator Al Franken about some provisions in the health care bill and repeatedly interrupting while Franken tried to answer. Mattera apparently has serious problems with government investment into public health as well as mandates for employers to provide time for breastfeeding mothers to………………you guessed it, breast feed or to express milk to take home to their baby.

Let’s start with some basics. Breastfeeding is what is healthiest for babies. Babies who get breast milk are much healthier. Mandating that employers give breastfeeding mothers time to breastfeed is a bare minimum standard of decency. In most advanced democracies, most mothers get up to a year or more of paid or partially paid maternity time off to feed and raise their child. This is what is healthiest for the baby, the mother, and society. The idea that young conservatives are fighting against mandatory breastfeeding time in 2010 is frankly an absolute disgrace. Supporting mothers is what’s called family values. Its called putting people before profit. It’s called compassion and common sense.

These types of progressive people-based policies reduce poverty, crime, and strengthen families and communities. If Mattera is the future of Conservatism, the future looks an awful, and I mean awful lot like the past. http://blog.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2010/03/conservatives_against_brea
st_f.html I stumbled across this...omigawd, look who's MOST in favor of breastfeeding:



And,

Quote:

---

Last Thursday, the Iowa Senate approved a bill that would improve the health and well-being of Iowa working mothers and their children. In addition, this bill would reduce many employers' health care costs while lowering employee turnover and absenteeism. Unlike legislation that pits business interests against the needs of working families, this bill would be a win-win.

Nevertheless, almost the whole Republican caucus voted against Senate File 2270, which promotes workplace accommodations for employees who express breast milk. SF 2270 is so reasonable that two dozen states and the District of Columbia have enacted similar laws. It's so reasonable that it passed unanimously out of the Iowa Senate Labor and Business Relations Committee.

On February 18, SF 2270 passed on a 29-15 vote. All 28 Democratic senators who were present voted yes, joined by Republican Shawn Hamerlinck. Republicans Wieck and Ward were absent. The other 15 Senate Republicans all voted no, including Houser and Zaun, who had supported the bill in committee the previous week. http://www.bleedingheartland.com/diary/3699/republican-family-values-o
n-display-in-iowa-senate gee whiz oh gosh almighty, look who:

Quote:

---

Andrew Kaczynski of BuzzFeed has unearthed a 2006 political battle involving then-Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the state Department of Public Health, and vocal advocacy groups that you don’t see everyday.

A battle involving a group that then Romney spokesman and current campaign adviser Eric Fehrnstrom dubbed “a very vocal minority of breast-feeding advocates.”

In 2006, Romney urged the Massachusetts Department of Public Heath to reconsider a decision that would have made Massachusetts the first state to ban gift bags to new mothers leaving the maternity ward that included infant formula, coupons, and other presents paid for by the formula companies.

The Department of Public Health had previously made the decision to strike down the gift bags for the belief that the giveaways encourage mothers to give up on breast-feeding, which several medical studies show lead to babies less-likely to suffer from several illnesses and ailments in comparison to bottle-fed babies

Romney took a firmer anti-big government stance on the state attempting to influence the decision of mothers on how to best feed their babies.

“I’m not enthusiastic about the heavy arm of government coming in and saying, ‘We think we know better than the mothers and we are going to decide that they can’t get free formula when it comes as a welcome home kit from the suppliers of formula with Q-tips, baby lotion and so forth,’ ” ABC reported in 2006 Romney said on the issue.

Critics argued that the governor was giving in to corporate interests looking to market their product to consumers on day 1, literally.

As many hospitals began to do away with the gift bags on their own, the Romney Administration argued that the issue had become overblown thanks to a small number of vocal critics.

Eventually, Romney was able to direct the state’s public health commissioner to overturn the all-out ban on formula giveaways, but many prominent Massachusetts hospitals still prohibit the gift bags. http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/04/07/romney-administration-stood-to
e-to-toe-against-very-vocal-minority-of-breast-feeding-advocates-in-2006-ma-legislative-debate/ COULD say something about corporate interests versus the health of mother and baby. But then I wouldn't.

Oh, and let's not ignore this lovely comment:

Quote:

---

•How come it is never a hot mom in public breast-feeding? It is always some hippie, angry at the world so I won’t shave my armpit liberal that does this kind of thing. http://www.divinecaroline.com/22108/82971-public-breastfeeding-indecen
t-exposure from the article in question...

Quote:

---

The comments from the readers reflect the real opinions of people here in the United States in regards to breastfeeding. Essentially, the opinion about breastfeeding can be summarized in the following belief statements:

1. Breasts are sexual objects and therefore it is indecent to nurse, whether publicly or privately. Additionally, women who breastfeed publicly should feel ashamed of themselves and deserve the harassment, perverse comments, and other negative attention they receive.

2. Babies do not need to breastfeed. Formula is just as good.

3. Women who are stubbornly determined to breastfeed should at least remain at home because it is unnecessary, indecent and perverse to do so in public.Same

---

Gosh, those certainly sound like liberal views to me!

It IS a shame these perceptions exist in America. The author had some interesting things to say on it:

Quote:

---

I am a staunch breastfeeding advocate. But I have to admit that I still feel slightly uncomfortable when breastfeeding in public. Why do I feel this way?

The truth is two-fold. The first half starts with the advent of infant formula companies and their corrupt marketing strategies. According to the National Fertility Survey 68 percent of mothers born between 1911 and 1915 breastfed their first baby, compared with 35 percent of mothers born by the early 1940’s.


market. Commercial infant formula was touted as the new “scientific” way of feeding your baby which also liberated mothers from needing to be in constant contact with their infants. Women in the United States, as well as in other Western countries, rapidly accepted this new model of infant feeding and breastfeeding rates began to drop continuously from this point forward. At the same time, formula companies promoted their product in third world countries, ultimately leading to malnutrition, health problems and death in millions of infants abroad because of improper sanitation, weak or improperly mixed solutions of formula, and loss of the many natural benefits present in breast milk.

By 1971, breastfeeding the United States was at al all time low of 23 percent. Consider also, that this statistic includes any baby that was ever breastfeed, even a single time. It wasn’t until after July 4, 1977, when an enormous boycott was launched against Nestlé and other infant formula makers, that the public perception of breastfeeding began to improve again. Also, at this time, La Leche League and other lactavist groups began to rally to improve the public understanding of the real benefits of mother’s milk.


The second part of the equation is that while women’s breasts were no longer being utilized as they were intended (to feed human infants), media in this country became more and more explicit in using women’s bodies as sexual objects. Women’s bodies have become in our country an extraordinary tool for advertising, marketing and sales. As the standards for what is acceptable to appear on television deteriorate and you can see nearly naked women bumping, grinding and tantalizing viewers on practically every channel, it is not shocking that the American public cannot conceive of women’s breasts as anything but sexual.

At the same time, it is important to remember that this is a cultural phenomenon and does not represent anything more than the depravity, frivolity and density of American society. In plenty of other cultures around the world, women’s breasts are still perceived as utilitarian tools with which babies are nourished. None of the mystique and sexual aura surrounds them. Men and women of all ages congratulate women who breastfeed their children publicly and encourage them to continue for as many years as the children desire to do so.

Breastfeeding is not only accepted in Mongolian culture, but embraced, expected and encouraged. Children are expected not only to nurse, but to nurse “to term,” which could be anything from two to four years old and sometimes upwards of that.

In Mali, women go around topless, breastfeeding their infants without even a sideways glance from onlookers.

Well, we do have a peculiar obsession with breasts in this culture. A lot of people think it’s just the human nature to be fascinated with breasts but in many cultures, breasts aren’t sexual at all. I interviewed a young anthropologist working with women in Mali, in a country in Africa where women go around with bare breasts. They’re always feeding their babies. And when she told them that in our culture men are fascinated with breasts there was an instant of shock. The women burst out laughing. They laughed so hard, they fell on the floor. They said, “You mean, men act like babies?”

But the ultimate truth is we cannot escape from the society in which we live. It’s wonderful that breastfeeding is accepted and encouraged in other cultures, but if we live in America, we have to acknowledge the fact that many people are uncomfortable with watching mothers nurse their babies.

What is the solution? Plain and simple—more public breastfeeding. The more people see something, the more common it becomes, and the less it jumps out as a shocking anathema.

---

Interesting. Gawd, I wish we were like Mali in that respect!

Quote:

---

And only an idiot would turn this into a liberal-conservative issue.

---

Quote:

---

The old ways are the best ways. But then there are liberals who try and ruin it, and make it gross.

---