And when there is no (more) breast?

There's a serious problem these days: people are in too much of a hurry to read to the end; to listen to the end. To stay until the end, for what's worthwhile. Or even if it's not worthwhile, so they can criticize, if there's room for criticism. It seems they're running with their eyes separated from their ears, as if that would put them on a victorious march. But which march? Thus, Portuguese parents and teachers are especially surprised when their 'kids' finish (rushing) high school without realizing that a text begins at the beginning and only ends at the end. And that it still needs to be reread. Then, half the country (who cares) complains with unrelated arguments about the low rates of admission to higher education, already in this bustling August.

First, this should be the concern: knowing how to read and write well. Listening, too, with active listening. Were these children, considered adults on the verge of college or a new job, well-nurtured?

That's not the point, and they're giving too much importance to breastfeeding; in fact, they're even going so far as to belittle mothers and children who have different breastfeeding rhythms. It's already insulting to start limiting breastfeeding times. I'd say more, but that wouldn't be appropriate language. It's not just mothers who will be harmed by this restriction on breastfeeding schedules. Children, now adults, won't like knowing they experienced something like this in their early childhood.

Now, the stories about breastfeeding for how long and whether a man or a woman should do it (because, yes, everything gets mixed up in what's half-read, half-heard), who said what—thus, sad tales spread like a contagion typical of what COVID-19 was, and I truly believe we are living through a new pandemic: misinformation and weaning. Yes, weaning fits well here. For those who have reached this point in the text and haven't left yet, allow me to put the words as they are, in their proper and original etymology.

Increasingly, misinformation on such important topics as this—breastfeeding and weaning—is fueled by the rush to post and publish first, to speak ill of someone first. To "see" oneself first. The pediatrician, the journalist, the commentator with a connection, the politician... all come along and offer their opinions on how and who should breastfeed. Incidentally, this is a word often used in parliamentary discourse, unfortunately, for other situations.

Still on the topic of the far-fetched legislative novelty of breastfeeding/mothers' work leave, there are supposed journalists and authors who write something that seems like an archaeological find: that breastfed children are more successful in cognitive and emotional performance. This has been known for decades, but now there is a caution with these 'findings' being addressed this way when there are mothers who cannot and have not been able to breastfeed. So, in this case, are these children left to suffer the fate of this misinformation? Are these mothers left with a feeling of gender powerlessness? The bond and future performance of these 'kids' are achieved through other complementary stimuli.

And it seems that everything breast-related has been a nuisance recently. In Denmark, I remember seeing a small mermaid (not the Little Mermaid) as a tourist attraction; however, they built a larger one (much larger) because the Danes complained about the height of the first mermaid. Well, the sculptor was criticized, and the large statue, due to its larger breasts, also proportionate to the requested height, was removed because they considered it pornographic. But it took them a while to get over this.

Perhaps there's a faster spread of breast problems and even a false puritanism. No one understands each other, everyone is bothered, and it's women who suffer. Statues don't matter here. This is the truth.