PDA

View Full Version : Time Magazine's Breastfeeding Cover



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

oleada
05-12-2012, 07:32 AM
I'm all for live and let live, but the though of attachment parenting sounds completely :scream:. Granted, I don't have kids. One thing that really bothers me, though, is hearing people talk about how the family bed is this wonderful natural thing that is practiced around the world. As someone who comes from a place where the family bed is not terribly unusual, it's not like it's something people do because it's "natural" but rather because they can't afford another bed. I think many would jump at the chance to NOT have the entire family share one bed.

I don't know why that bothers me so much, but there you go.

WindSpirit
05-12-2012, 10:20 AM
Really? How?

A straw man is a distortion or a misrepresentation of someone's argument, one that's easy to refute.


I said that just because something is natural, it doesn't mean it necessarily belongs on public display in response to your saying that nursing is not a disease, is natural and therefore, should not be hidden.

No, you said that you "don't buy the argument that because something is natural, it belongs on public display." Only I didn't make that argument.

Slippery slope is where you made a link between my saying that breastfeeding is "the most natural thing in the world" to all natural things, inducing bodily functions, should be on display because they're natural.


You are also implying that disease should be hidden. Why?

No, I'm not.

I used "a disease that should be hidden" as a way to describe how many people react to breastfeeding. I contrasted it with "the most natural thing in the world". From the context of my post it's clear I didn't mean it literally. I'm sure there are more natural things in the world than breastfeeding. Breathing, for example. What I wrote simply meant that while some people treat breastfeeding like a dirty thing, something to be ashamed of, it's not.

And if you asked me to elaborate, I would say it's because feeding the young is essential to their survival in any species and that in my eyes supersedes one's qualms about possibly being in a vicinity of it; it's hard to argue with a baby that they should wait until the mother gets home; it's unreasonable to demand that all nursing mothers stayed home until their children are weaned, etc. As you can see it's not even close to what you read into my post.

UGG
05-12-2012, 01:39 PM
I doubt it was meant to be realistic. I think it was meant to convey a message and spread awareness, kind of like gay parades.

Breastfeeding is still considered tabu by many in the US. Or, as I said before, like a disease that needs to be kept hidden. It's not a disease, it's the most natural thing in the world.

The woman doesn't show more of her breast that most celebrities in the media (actually less, I would say), but OMG, she has a child attached to it, how dare she actually use her funbags for the purpose they were intended for and not for the mere pleasure of onlookers?

I hate to break it to you, but this cover is for the mere pleasure of onlookers. Look how much controversy it has caused. I don't really agree that it was used to get people thinking as much as it was used to just get people "talking" about it. Half the people talking about it, or probably more than half, have probably not even read the article.

Way to go TIME Magazine to get attention on an otherwise boring topic for anyone other than a mother LOL!

TBH-I really found the title more offensive than the picture. "Are you mom enough?" me? compared to who? People who breastfeed? How stupid. Of course I am.

I really enjoyed this blog

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-belkin/no-i-am-not-mom-enough_b_1507550.html

The breastfeeding conversation is not titillating. The TIME cover is.

Breastfeeding is not a macho test of motherhood, with the winner being the one who nurses the longest. In fact there ARE no macho tests of motherhood. Motherhood is -- should be -- a village, where we explore each other's choices, learn from them, respect them, and then go off and make our own.

Women who breastfeed their children for three years are outliers, but they are not spectacles, and we shouldn't hold them up as either Madonnas or freaks. Women who do not breastfeed are not monsters, and we should not condemn them, or really have any opinion about their decision at al

I really thought those words were things to think about. Me personally, I did not breastfeed. you have to be VERY committed to do it, and I was just to overwhelmed in general being a new mom to even add that to my list of things to be stressed out about. So it was not for me. And that is what worked for me and my son-and we were both happy. But I really do commend any mother who does decide to breastfeed.

UGG
05-12-2012, 01:43 PM
I don't disagree she's lovely -what I was questioning was the idea that anyone said that it is unrealistic that a 26 year old mom could be fit. I think we're all a little conditioned to see a magazine cover and assume "model" because they usually are. If not then they're often a well known figure.

You quoted me as saying an unfit mother was unrealistic. I did not say that. I said that if they had some frumpy mom breastfeeding her two year old in a nurturing environment, the cover would have gotten a lot less attention.

This was my quote you used


They used a young and attractive mother with a child that looks older than his age to cause controversy. If they had frumpy Frannie nursing....

Where did I say she is unrealistic? I happen to be quite attractive so I know that there are others of us out there. ;p

milanessa
05-12-2012, 02:07 PM
You quoted me as saying an unfit mother was unrealistic. I did not say that. I said that if they had some frumpy mom breastfeeding her two year old in a nurturing environment, the cover would have gotten a lot less attention.

This was my quote you used



Where did I say she is unrealistic? I happen to be quite attractive so I know that there are others of us out there. ;p

:confused: I've never quoted you (up until now) in my entire history of posting at FSU. Your beef is with agalisgv.

judiz
05-12-2012, 02:22 PM
Why not have the cover be more realistic? Photograph the mom sitting on the couch and the child cuddled in her lap nursing.

judiz
05-12-2012, 02:24 PM
delete

cruisin
05-12-2012, 02:32 PM
:huh: What was she supposed to use, a dog?

Way to distort what I said. I meant she was using the child to make her point, not his.


I think she doesn't feel the need to protect her child's identity (that wouldn't be protected if hers wasn't anyway) because she doesn't see anything wrong with breastfeeding him. I kind of dig that logic. Should she raise her child to believe it's shameful just because other people believe so?

You are missing the point. The staging of the photo comes across as inappropriate. It does not come across as mother/child bonding. It comes across as creepy. The standing on a chair, the facial expressions. I cannot imagine that women who nurse their children until they are 4 or older, have their kid stand on a chair glaring into a camera. If this is about bonding, it should have been presented as such. Sorry, but there is almost an inappropriate sexual quality to this photo. And that is what bothers me.



The breastfeeding conversation is not titillating. The TIME cover is.[I]

Exactly.

UGG
05-12-2012, 02:41 PM
:confused: I've never quoted you (up until now) in my entire history of posting at FSU. Your beef is with agalisgv.

Yes, you are right sorry. I did not mean to quote you. I quoted the wrong quote LOL. I agree with what you said. Dang now I need to go edit my post and I don't feel like it!

Jot the Dot Dot
05-12-2012, 02:59 PM
For some reason, the cover makes me think of Tori Amos (http://www.coolspot.org.uk/images/tori_bfp.jpg)....

Or for me, Lucy Lawless. http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/hot-breastfeeding.jpg

milanessa
05-12-2012, 03:13 PM
Yes, you are right sorry. I did not mean to quote you. I quoted the wrong quote LOL. I agree with what you said. Dang now I need to go edit my post and I don't feel like it!

It's okay. :)

MacMadame
05-12-2012, 03:57 PM
Have we determined whether attachment parenting is in any way related to helicopter parenting?
It's not remotely connected. Helicopter parenting is about micromanaging your child's life. The big dig most people make about AP is that it's too laissez-faire.

modern_muslimah
05-12-2012, 04:00 PM
I'm all for live and let live, but the though of attachment parenting sounds completely :scream:. Granted, I don't have kids. One thing that really bothers me, though, is hearing people talk about how the family bed is this wonderful natural thing that is practiced around the world. As someone who comes from a place where the family bed is not terribly unusual, it's not like it's something people do because it's "natural" but rather because they can't afford another bed. I think many would jump at the chance to NOT have the entire family share one bed.

I don't know why that bothers me so much, but there you go.

Same here. Bed sharing just takes on a different meaning when you have to do it. I love having my own bed and I think that if I ever have children, I probably won't have any qualms about putting them in cribs or bassinets.

I do have a question to put out. I was talking to a friend who has an infant and she sleeps with her baby. She said that babies can't always regulate their breathing, which can cause them to stop breathing while sleeping in their cribs. She said that co-sleeping can help a baby to keep a regular breathing pattern when sleeping and also help the parent be aware if the baby stops breathing. Does anyone know how valid this is?

Hannahclear
05-12-2012, 05:21 PM
It's Time magazine that designed the cover to sell issues and provoke various reactions. Because 99% of mothers are going to look at the cover, read "are you mom enough," and be like "hell no, I'm not mom enough" (because we all have insecurities) and wish we looked like the woman to boot!

Or maybe that's just me. :shuffle:

IceAlisa
05-12-2012, 05:23 PM
A straw man is a distortion or a misrepresentation of someone's argument, one that's easy to refute. What I said is not an example of a straw man. See below.




No, you said that you "don't buy the argument that because something is natural, it belongs on public display." Only I didn't make that argument.
What argument did you make?

You said it wasn't something to be hidden, it was natural. What argument were you making and where does the concept of natural belong in it?


Slippery slope is where you made a link between my saying that breastfeeding is "the most natural thing in the world" to all natural things, inducing bodily functions, should be on display because they're natural.
No. A slippery slope is when someone says something like if we let people smoke pot, sooner or later they will do heroin, cocaine, etc. That's not what I am saying. I never said that if nursing is public, other natural events would take place in public as well. But I did challenge the notion that something natural belongs in public.


Your argument was:
A. Natural things belong in public.
B. Breastfeeding is a natural thing, therefore it belongs in public.

I was challenging notion A. If that's not what you meant, I am not sure why you mentioned the natural part at all.



No, I'm not.

I used "a disease that should be hidden" as a way to describe how many people react to breastfeeding. I contrasted it with "the most natural thing in the world". Disease sometimes can be "the most natural thing in the world" too. Why do you think that is a contrast?


From the context of my post it's clear I didn't mean it literally. I'm sure there are more natural things in the world than breastfeeding. Breathing, for example. What I wrote simply meant that while some people treat breastfeeding like a dirty thing, something to be ashamed of, it's not. So where does natural belong in the argument?


And if you asked me to elaborate, I would say it's because feeding the young is essential to their survival in any species and that in my eyes supersedes one's qualms about possibly being in a vicinity of it; it's hard to argue with a baby that they should wait until the mother gets home; it's unreasonable to demand that all nursing mothers stayed home until their children are weaned, etc. As you can see it's not even close to what you read into my post. Actually, it sounds more like what I said about the inability to explain to the baby that she or he has to wait. But it has nothing to do with being natural.
I am arguing that being natural is completely irrelevant. It's necessary when other options are not available (a quiet, secluded place), that's why it should be allowed in public.