Really? The Cover?

Remember when Time magazine used to be awesome?  OK, maybe I'm exaggerating just a tad with the use of the word "awesome".  But it did used to be a great source of comprehensive news stories from around the globe.  The journalism was good and the topics were good.  Oh, but that Time seems to have come and gone.  And in its place, we are left with the sort of Time magazine that has this on its cover.  Behold!

Now, if you're like me, you took one look at that and your brain came up with the omnipresent "Oh, what the hell is that?" inquiry.  And I really wish that I could go into a lot of detail about what the article was actually about, but I'm not about to subscribe to Time.com in order to do that.  Besides, I highly doubt that anything in the article is going to sway me away from what I have to say about their cover.  And just for the record, the picture depicts a one Jamie Lynne Gurnet as she breast feeds her four-year old son.  Good Lord...

First of all, I'm not against breastfeeding.  You want to breast feed, have at it!  You want to breast feed in public, I'd prefer it if you'd be discreet, but again, have at it!  You want to put a picture on the cover of Time magazine of yourself breast feeding your kid who is almost five, I'm going to recoil in horror.  And it has nothing to do with partially seeing a breast!  Breasts are simply lovely!  It's really hard to get around that fact.  Breasts are gooooooood.  But to me, if you're putting that sort of picture out for all the world to see, you're about something more than just how you want to nourish your child.  You're looking for some sort of attention and you've chosen what I feel is a highly inappropriate way to get said attention. 

Speaking of attention, what about the attention that your kid is going to get out of this?  I'm sure that he'll be thrilled, just thrilled, when he's a teenager and his friends find out about this (and they will) and then the picture of him suckling on his mother when he's a four-year old, like a newborn calf, is going to cause some problems for him.  It might even be causing some problems now for him.  Why would you put your son in a position like that?  Why would you place your small child in such a vulnerable position?  I can't agree with that choice on any level. 

Something about this whole mode/style of parenting doesn't sit well with me.  It seems to be more about a certain group of people who are intent on pushing their particular lifestyle down the throats (no pun intended) of others.  I will never understand that part of humans.  Why, if they like something and someone else doesn't, the former will feel the need to make sure to flaunt the thing that the other person doesn't like right in front of them?  I don't get that.  And breast feeding your kid when they're no longer an infant seems to fall right along that line. 

I understand that there's the whole bonding issue thing.  But you can bond with your kid without breast feeding them.  I promise.  It's been done gazillions of times before and people seem to be just fine! And if it's really just about the nutrients that the kid can get from breast milk, can't you just pump and have the kid drink it after it's out of your body?  I seriously think that if you have some "need" or "desire" to have your kid breast feed after the kid is no longer a baby, you need to take a long, hard look at what your real motives are.  And if you're not willing to do that, what say you stop trying to actively push that sort of "parenting method" upon other people.  (Have you ever noticed that when people are doing something that is "controversial" (eg, crazy as a fruit bat) that all they want to do is tell you what a terrible person you are for not doing it?)  And if you're not willing to do that, what say you just take a baby step and not have a picture of you breast feeding your school-aged child on the cover of a national publication, eh? 

Sphere: Related Content

Do Not Buy That On The Internet

Sometimes I read things and I just think to myself "Who are you people?" Then I immediately retract that thought because I really don't think that I want to know in most cases. That's what happened when I stumbled across this headline over at The Vancouver Sun: "Don't buy breast milk on the Web, doctors warn". Good Lord. What now?

Seriously? Is this a warning that needs to be out there? You don't already know that you shouldn't be buying some random fluid from some stranger on the Internet and feeding it to your baby? Really? What part of that is the toughest for you to noodle through? I'm guessing all of it is a pretty novel concept to certain folks, as the sub-headline reads: "Lack of medical information about donors can result in problems, Health Canada says". Huh. In what way?

Of course it can result in problems! What is wrong with you people?! Who can't figure that out?! Who is buying breast milk over the Internet and feeding it (presumably and kind of hopefully) to their infant? Well, apparently the kind of people who joined a "...breast milk sharing program launched by a Montreal woman on social networking website Facebook". Why does Facebook have to be involved with everything?! I'm sick of hearing about Facebook, for cryin' out loud!

Look, do I really have to delve very far into this entire concept before I can just get to the common sense part of it that would tell any normal person that buying breast milk over the Internet is a BAD idea? According to the statement (that is clearly for people who are not going to read it, comprehend it, nor care what it says) that was released along with the whole "Don't buy breast milk over the Internet" shpiel, "There is a potential risk that the milk may be contaminated with viruses such as HIV or bacteria, which can cause food poisoning".

Really? Are you the sort of person who is going to do something so reckless that it potentially puts your child at risk for contracting HIV? Or any other sort of disease? Really? Powdered or pre-made formula is sooooo terrible in your mind that it is a better option to risk your child contracting HIV than to feed them milk not directly from a breast? You should not have children. At the very least, you certainly shouldn't be allowed the feed the children that you do have.

I'm sure that this sounds harsh and judgmental. Good. It's supposed to. Remember, a word to the wise isn't necessary; it's the stupid ones who need advice. And here's the advice: Don't buy breast milk over the Internet to feed to your baby. If you're wondering if it could possibly be so simple, trust me. It is. Just don't do it and you'll be fine. And, probably to your surprise, your baby will be fine too. Lots of people weren't breast fed and they turned out just fine.

Sphere: Related Content

Keeping Abreast of a Sucky Situation

From the files of "I don't think so" and the office of "Hell No" we have a new toy from a Spanish toy company known as Berjuan. According to Fox News, the doll is called "Bebe Gloton, which translates as “gluttonous baby”. So, what? It's like a fat baby? With a valve in the back that you can blow into and the baby gets bigger until it's just a round ball with barely distinguishable appendages? Is that it?

Oh, but I only wish it was something that normal. No, see, Bebe Gloton "makes sucking noises as it 'feeds'." That's right. As it feeds. That shouldn't be a big deal, right? There are lots of dolls out there that you can pretend to feed. And while that statement is true, there are NOT a lot of dolls out there that you can pretend to feed with your BREASTS.

Wait. What now?

Correct. It is a breast feeding doll. It is NOT a doll that is aimed at women who are going to be breast feeding in the near future. It is NOT a doll that is aimed at women who are of child bearing age. It is NOT a doll that is aimed at WOMEN. It is a doll for girls. It is a doll for CHILDREN. I needed to make that part of this clear because when you read that it "...comes with a special halter top its young "mothers" wear as they pretend to breast-feed their "babies." The halter top has daisies that cover the little girls’ nipples and come undone just as easily as the flaps of a nursing bra would." JUST as easily?! Oh, good! I was worried that they might be confusing and complicated flaps which would make it difficult for a small child to simulate breast feeding with her gluttonous doll! What is going on??

The article over there at Fox News continues the long standing Fox News tradition of including information that is vaguely related to the subject matter and inane at best when it says, "...many health care providers promote the benefits of breast-feeding, parents around the world have criticized Berjuan, saying the idea of breast-feeding is too grown-up for young children -- and may even promote early pregnancy." Good Lord.

I think that we're all aware that there are those who are for breast feeding and there are those who are against breast feeding. I don't know what in the world that has to do with whether or not a doll such as this one is inappropriate or just plain freaking wrong!

The "idea of breast-feeding"? I don't think that we're talking about "an idea" here. It's the act of physically simulating a child feeding a child via the first child's breast! And maybe it does promote pregnancy, and maybe it doesn't promote pregnancy. Again, I do not see what that has to do with whether or not a toy which imitates mammary suckling is appropriate for a child's toy!

Even though there have been many criticisms oft his insane toy, Fox News managed to find a couple of fringe lunatics who support the thing. Take a one Rose Haluschak from El Paso, Texas, who said "I think that it’s great that people want to have a doll that promotes breast-feeding. Most dolls that are purchased come with a bottle. That is the norm in society, an artificial way to feed your baby.” (It's unfortunate that we don't get to learn more about Rose. I'd really like to know how many times she's been in prison, how many children she has had from how many different men (none of which she married), and what was the highest grade she completed in middle school.) I'm just going to take this opportunity to point that that it's not an "artificial way to feed your baby"; it's an artificial way to feed your artificial baby, you pinhead. Who thinks it's great to promote breast feeding to a small girl? Anyone besides Rose? God, I hope not.

Fox News also quoted a one Dr. Manny Alvarez, who is conveniently the managing health editor of FOXNews.com. He said "although he supports the idea of breast-feeding, he sees how his own daughter plays with dolls and wonders if Bebe Gloton might speed up maternal urges in the little girls who play it." For crying out loud, this has NOTHING To do with whether or not you support a woman breast feeding her baby or not! Why do people not get that? Why does everything have to be prefaced with a disclaimer to the effect of "Not that there's anything wrong with that!"?

He continued to make my question how he ever became a doctor (and to wonder if maybe he's just a chiropractor) when he said, "Pregnancy has to entail maturity and understanding." Again, NOT about pregnancy. What he said? True! Relevancy to this topic? None! But even still, it's like he couldn't stop himself. "...breast-feeding reduces childhood infections, strengthens maternal bonding and increases the child’s immune system." We know. We KNOW! What about the doll?? "But introducing breast-feeding to girls young enough to play with dolls seems inappropriate." FINALLY! Thank YOU! Why was that so difficult?!

But as inappropriate as I think this is, I'm wondering if I'm missing something about it that would make me think differently. I say that because over there across the pond at The Daily Mail they ran a story about the gluttonous baby and nearly ALL of the comments that people left were folks saying that they thought this was "fine" and even "great" in a few instances. That totally surprised me and made me wonder if I'm just not getting it. (Don't get me wrong, I still don't like it. I'm just wondering why folks are SO OK with it.)

Look, I'm not saying that this sort of a doll can "promote pregnancy". I'm not buying that. And I have nothing against breast feeding. (Believe me! Nothing!) It's just that a doll is a TOY and toys are to PLAY with. I don't know that every toy needs to exactly replicate how it is in real life. (Are we going to be able to look forward to "Knocked Up Barbie" and "Oral Copulation Ken"? Real life! REAL life!)

Dolls are more about playing than they are parenting. If the toy companies feel that kids need toys that will allow them to imitate adults in adult situations, what say they teach 'em how get a job? Or mow the lawn? And not just any lawn...MY lawn.

Below is a video showing just how this thing works. The first 28 seconds there is no sound, but don't worry! All the crying and the suckling DO start at 29 seconds! (Just thought I'd save you from spending 28 seconds adjusting your speakers before you realized that there wasn't anything wrong with them like some people did.)

Sphere: Related Content