Breastfeeding Mom in restaurant stare off...

I knew a lady who breastfed her kid until they were around 5. Mainly at night to put them to bed. I thought it kinda weird. She did admit that it was harder for her to give it up then the child.

lazygal wrote: »

He's two. How grown up should he be? He loves dinosaurs, cars, trains, diggers, all food and his books. And he loves having his breastmilk too.

Isn't it the recommendation of the World Health Organization to breastfeed until two anyway? Don't understand all the fuss, he's two and he's happy to continue. Fair play to you.

I think WHO recommend that kids be breastfed until they are 30 months. Although they do factor in the poorer countries where an suitable alternative may not be readily available.

Im not against breastfeeding in public but that picture does seem to have been done to get attention instead of her just breastfeeding her child so it seems a bit silly.

This seems like it would be a brilliant subject for one of those Ask Me Anything threads.

lazygal wrote: »

Yes, it is recommended to feed until two years of age. I had planned on weaning him when he turned two but he's happy and I'm not too bothered so I left it.

I don't think there is anything wrong with that. It must be an amazing bonding time to have. You'll probably miss it more than him.

smash wrote: »

Well he's old enough to not be babied by giving him your breast to sloth him whenever he gets upset. Honestly, if he's eating food then the breast is a comfort thing and nothing more and I'm of the opinion that you do it for you and not him. Either way, that's your choice. I might not agree with it and I've explained why but it's your choice so I've no interest in arguing about it as I find you an interesting poster.

It really isn't solely a comfort thing as there are nutritional and health benefits to extended breastfeeding. But at two years of age what's wrong with a bit of comfort as well?

Kev W wrote: »

This seems like it would be a brilliant subject for one of those Ask Me Anything threads.

I would be happy to do one on breastfeeding. I never saw myself as someone who'd still be feeding a two year old but here I am and I'm happy to answer people's questions.

esforum wrote: »

I am as well versed on breast feeding as any man can be and I am well aware of the benefits which mostly finished at the 6 month stage which is not coincidently also roughly when a child is ready for solid food. You are coming across in this thread as one of those people who thinks they know everything about a subject and need to educate the others. I can google all day long and find a lot of sites that will say 2 is too old.

If a child at 2 is still showing no signs then it may not self wean for the simple reason that its no longer about food or sustinance but a habit / comfort thing. One which mammy is supporting. the child may possible see it as a bonding event and be reluctant to lose that. Thats not a dig at you in case it reads like it, just possible alternatives.

Its no different to a soother and as I stated and you ignored, nappies. there comes a time when its in the childs interest for the adult parent to make decisions.

I know a woman that breast feeds a 4 year old, trust me you dont want to be that person. Hes a nice kid but social skills and outward behaviour are very lacking. Tellingly the mother admits she wants him to remain a baby as long as possible being the last.

I can leave him overnight with my parents without an issue. He can cope fine without me when I am in work-I was back in full time work when both my children were 11 months old. I don't need dire warnings about other mothers and their breastfeeding experiences because what works for one mother and child won't work for another. I have friends who never breastfeed for many reasons and others who did it and hated it and others who's children weaned at three and a half. There's no one best way of breastfeeding, but it is recommended by the WHO to feed until a child is two years of age.

osarusan wrote: »

But you didn't leave the answers. You've obviously answered them from your perspective. You've said any number of times on this thread that this woman was being inconsiderate.

So please tell us, prior to the stareoff with the other customer happening, what exactly was she doing that you deem to be inconsiderate and attention seeking?

If she chooses to breastfeed in public, she's already considering herself over other people, and I don't have any issue with that, because she has to feed her child. It's when she decided to look around to see who's looking at her, and then engages in a stare-off, that I would say she was attention seeking. She needn't have bothered getting into a staring match, and you can come back and say the other woman shouldn't have been staring at her, but we can only control our own behaviour, we can't realistically control the thoughts and behaviour of other people around us.

lazygal wrote: »

But they are for feeding children. Again, you are projecting your feelings onto breastfeeding. You never told me how I could breastfeed considerately either. Why would you hope many women feel the same as you about breasts?

Breasts aren't for feeding children, that's what mammary glands are for. Men have breasts too, and under certain circumstances can lactate too. I'm not projecting my feelings about breastfeeding on this one, on this occasion I'm suggesting that not everyone shares your reductionist thinking that breasts are solely for feeding children (which they aren't, at all). There are many people in Western society who attach far more value to women's breasts than simply serving a functional, biological purpose.

I'm sure you're aware of women who have had mastectomies and the thought of you suggesting that well they were only for feeding children anyway would leave those women reeling. In those circumstances I'm sure you'd be capable of showing consideration for someone else besides yourself, and that's all it comes down to really. It's not simply about breastfeeding, it's about having consideration for other people. How you do that? Well that's up to you, I'm sure you're able to use your best judgement.

eviltwin wrote: »

When you are a nursing mother that is their primary function. Especially when you have a child who is hungry and getting cross. A woman on a plane can't exactly do much else but feed the child can she? What's more offensive to you, a glimpse of breast or a screaming baby?

I don't think of a woman's breasts solely in terms of their functionality. I do that with inanimate objects. That's why I don't think in reductionist terms. I find such thinking leaves me cold tbh. If a woman is on a plane and she needs to breastfeed her child, but I can see she's self-conscious about it, I'm not going to lean over to her and say "Oh don't mind me, you go right ahead", because that's likely to make her even more self-conscious IMO. If her baby needs food, then that should be her priority, and not who's looking at her while she's doing it. I certainly wouldn't be among them anyway, and a screaming baby wouldn't bother me at all either. I'm well used to babies crying, never bothered me in the slightest, because I don't expect babies to have the same consideration for other people as I would expect adults to have for other people.

It's just my opinion that actions like the woman in the OP has done, aren't about breastfeeding, they're about drawing attention to themselves, and that's excusable in children, just not so much in adults. Each scenario is a judgement call that will depend upon context. If a woman wants to breastfeed in public - by all means, have at it, but then looking around to see who's looking at her, and getting into stare-down matches? That's just silly, and I wouldn't give her the attention she craves. I'd simply carry on about my own business.