Last week, I fell down a Facebook rabbit-hole. Nothing terribly unusual; I’m sure you know how it works… Read a post, follow a link, click a shared picture, see a link for a group, click on that…
In Australian society, most mums have stopped breastfeeding within the first months of their baby’s lives. There are many factors that lead to early weaning including lack of education, lack of support, early return to work, difficulty pumping and much more.
However, many cite around 4 years as an average weaning age, though there isn’t a huge amount of data to back that up and it is probably more accurate to say that the natural duration of breastfeeding is between 2.5 and 7 years. At around 7 years, humans lose the ability to nurse anyway.
But for those living in a western society who choose to continue to breastfeed beyond infancy and well into toddler-hood, perhaps even into childhood, the lack of understanding and tolerance is frankly disturbing.
Last night, this article, by Kidspot, appeared in my timeline, and I made the very real mistake of reading the comments. The article is about an English mama who is still breastfeeding her 5 year old daughter. From what she says, her daughter feeds for comfort and she will be letting her self-wean.
I don’t know if I will be breastfeeding for 5 years. I have no plans to actively wean, though I have recently night-weaned (and even that is subject to flexibility!) so I guess I will leave it up to my little girl to make that decision for herself. Approaching age 5, if she is still breastfed, I may want my body to myself again and actively wean. Maybe I won’t. I don’t know. What I will NOT do, though, now or in the future, is to suffer abuse and intolerance based on how I choose to feed my child. Standing up for breastfeeding rights is not something I’m a stranger to, but it is getting tiring, so I’ve compiled a list of the most common themes I have seen against breastfeeding past infancy, many of which have reared their ugly heads in the aforementioned Kidspot thread.
1- There’s no nutritional benefit beyond the age of (insert arbitrary number here)- it’s unnecessary.
As Sharon Spinks points out, no food loses it’s nutritional value because you reach a certain age. The idea is a bit ludicrous, really. There is even evidence to suggest mature breast milk contains higher levels of fats and energy which may have a significant contribution to the diet of a growing child. So while it is obviously not necessary, in the strictest sense of the word, it’s not without benefit. I once saw a couple pouring Mountain Dew energy drink into the sippy cup of a child who could barely sit up in the high chair they had her in at my local KFC. Now THAT is what I consider truly unnecessary and void of nutritional value.
2- If a child can ask for it or has teeth- they are too old to be breastfed
By this logic, next time my 11 year old asks for something to eat, I should say no. I actually remember feeling this way about breastfeeding several years ago- but after doing SO MUCH reading on the subject, I can now chuckle over the lack of reasoning behind that argument. Since when do we stop someone eating or drinking based on their ability to ask for it or their dental status? The funny thing is, both my daughters have asked to be fed since birth. The newborn rooting for the breast is asking for milk just as much as the little voice that now asks me for “Mook, mummy, want some of dis!” while little hands pat my chest or the bigger voice begging me to make lasagne and offering to help.
3- She should just express if she wants her child to have the milk.
Why? What difference does that make? Breast milk is breast milk, whether it is in a bottle, a cup of straight from the breast. This one ties in closely with the next point.
4- It’s sexual/child abuse/paedophilia/incest/wrong/dirty/disgusting etc
No. It isn’t. the primary function of breasts is to make breast milk to feed our children. It’s really quite simple. The idea that breasts are only sexual is a man made construct that we are bombarded with constantly and the sad thing is that another consequence of this is that some mothers and their children are paying the price for that by early weaning or not breastfeeding at all. One lady commented on the Kidspot thread that her 17 month old would attempt to breastfeed in public and she would become so embarrassed that she would literally shake her off her and refuse to hold her until she weaned. Her comment just about broke my heart- she rejected her child’s attempt to be close to her, to seek comfort and food from her mother, due to what appears to be societal pressures. I find that so sad. She then added some rubbish about it being a “fact” that breastfeeding could trigger a “pelvic muscle” to cause a “small orgiasum”[sic]. Most women that I know who breastfeed don’t have a sexual attachment to it at all. It’s not sexual. It doesn’t feel orgasmic. It’s not that kind of pleasure. The pleasure that I associate with breastfeeding is generally in the closeness, the bond, with my child. I don’t know where people get some of these ideas, truly. Why is the idea that a body part can serve more than one role so hard to grasp? Take for example- the humble backside. Many people list a nice bum as a desirable feature, there are songs devoted to it, pants available to enhance it- but what does it do? The muscle itself helps us to walk, stand, sit- and also protects the opening through which we pass waste. And wind. Hot, right? So we are ok with a sexy bum that has all those other purposes- but sexy breasts that also nourish a child? Nope. Gross.
5- The poor child might get bullied!
One way to prevent this is to raise your children not to bully others. Saying “Don’t feed your child that to avoid bullying” is akin to saying “Dye your child’s ginger hair or she might get teased for it”. I doubt many school aged kids are breastfed during school hours (ie- at school) and my guess is that it’s probably not really something they’d think to discuss. But if they did, I’d hope that any child of mine wouldn’t care in the slightest. My eldest, some time after the fact, learned that a couple of her kindy pals were still occasionally breastfed once starting school. She shrugged and went back to what she was doing before. Kids are only horrified by something if they are taught to be, so teach them that being breastfed is nothing to clutch their pearls over and this problem goes away.
6- It will damage them psychologically, they might remember it!
Remembering being held, nurtured and nourished by your mother, how bloody terrible! The poor children! As for as psychological damage, nope, no evidence to suggest that. The research admittedly isn’t huge in this area- but what there is points to long-term breastfeeding being overall physiologically and psychologically beneficial for children.
To summarise- breastfeeding beyond infancy is pretty normal in some parts of the world. Mothers in Western societies who do it are speaking out in what seems to me to be an effort to normalise it- not to gain attention I don’t think anyone would invite the criticism and vitriolic abuse and ignorance directed at Sharon Spinks that I have seen online. It may not be for you, that’s ok. Totally fine. But others wouldn’t have it any other way; they want to let their child decide when to wean, allowing them to make that first big decision for themselves. There is no proven harm to the practice and available evidence says there are health benefits both physically and psychologically.
If you’re uncomfortable with the idea of breastfeeding a toddler, here’s an idea- don’t breastfeed your toddler! Or perhaps examine your reasoning, do some reading on the subject and reassess. This is the same as the debate over public breastfeeding- if you have a problem with it, recognise that it is your problem, stop projecting it on to others and expecting them to adjust their lifestyle to accommodate your prejudices and hang-ups and move on with your life.
Rape culture is a term being used a lot lately. It’s not a new term, but there is a new awareness of how acceptable it has become to sexually assault women in our society. Rape culture endorses blaming victims for their assaults, making women responsible for preventing their assaults and shaming women for the sexual exploits that men are applauded for. Why women are treated this way is a big question and there isn’t one single answer but rather many facets of our society that come together to form the larger picture. And as we all know, a picture can speak a thousand words, which is why advertisers have much to answer for in perpetuating this disturbing culture.
Women are near constantly sexually objectified in advertisements, used to adorn products often completely unrelated to female sexuality. How is it that women’s bodies are required to sell men’s fragrances, alcohol, socks and protein bars? Why does it take naked women to sell animal rights and veganism?
Tom Ford Fragrance for Men- striking imagery but degrading all the same. Where is the rest of this woman? Where is her face? Who cares, buy the cologne.
An American beer ad- because this drink will see you, too, draped in attractive women wearing swimsuits.
American Apparel- Sweatshop free, soft core porn.
Breasts sell bars.
PETA have been defending animal rights and exploiting women for years.
Magazines aimed at men such as Zoo Weekly are among the worst offenders for their portrayal of women as nothing more than sexual playthings for men and they actively encourage their readers to join in, like in this subsequently banned Facebook post:
A bifurcated woman is pictured, while the caption asks which “side” men prefer, and why. The post was banned by the Advertising Standards Bureau.
Advertising has crossed the line on what we should find acceptable many times over with regard to the use of women to sell products, but none more so to my mind than those that have utilised sexual assault to sell product. Well known vodka producer Belvedere and high end fashion house Dolce & Gabbana found themselves in hot water over using rape imagery and “humour” to promote their products.
Seriously, what on earth were they thinking? Not only did this ad lead to widespread outrage, it also prompted a lawsuit from the woman in the picture. Turns out they used the image without permission
Beautiful, glossy gang rape, banned back in 2007.
Are men objectified in advertising? I think sometimes they are, but not to the level or the extent that women are- for example, I’ve yet to see women’s perfume advertised by jamming a bottle of it against a man’s oiled, waxed genitals.
This type of advertising perpetuates the myth that a man’s attention can only be caught be appealing to his sexual interests- otherwise, they won’t be interested or won’t understand. The length and breadth of language, art and humour is apparently lost on men unless it is crude, demeaning or jammed between a pair of glossy breasts.
Unilever brand Lynx (a.k.a ‘Axe’ in other parts of the world) are well know for their crude, demeaning ad campaigns.
Another naked woman selling Tom Ford’s cologne. Or is it the same one? Who knows, still can’t see her face.
Although this is extremely demeaning to men, who are just as capable of being sensitive, thoughtful, inspired and humorous beings as women are, it also sets a dangerous standard for younger men and boys, who are bombarded with this kind of imagery as society tells them this is what should appeal to them, this is what is acceptable.
It seems obvious that these messages we are sending our young men are a part of the reason rape culture still exists today. Our society tell them that on some level, women are objects, objects are just things, and as things, they don’t have thoughts or feelings. To quote American Democratic Strategist and rape survivor Zerlina Maxwell, “I don’t think that we should be telling women anything, I think we should be telling men not to rape women and start the conversation there.” I think Zerlina makes an excellent point. Start the conversation. Start it with your sons and stop accepting the exploitative advertising we are bombarded with each day. Let advertisers know it’s not on. Tell them with your emails, your posts on their Facebook pages, your tweets, your phone calls, your name on a petition and your buying power going elsewhere. The advent of social media has given people a power to bring about positive change that hasn’t been seen before, with web-based campaigns bringing about positive results, like an online petition stopping 13CABS from running an advertisement playing on fear of rape to encourage people to use their taxi service, or anti-sexism group Destroy the Joint successfully petitioning Telstra to remove silent number fees for domestic violence victims.
You have a strong and powerful voice. Use it.