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

IceAlisa
05-12-2012, 05:45 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:

What I saw bothering some people is that while the whole AP parenting is about nurturing and close connection with the child (not sure what it implies about non-AP parents), the picture on the cover of TIME did not show any nurturing or connection. It was more like a challenge to the world.

So the mom in question said in the interview that the nursing takes place in her lap. Obviously, this shot was staged and deliberately made to look a certain way. And it worked.

made_in_canada
05-12-2012, 05:47 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:

I think you just hit the nail on the head.

cruisin
05-12-2012, 06:05 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:

You make a valid point. Though i am not feeling insecure, in any way. I breast fed my children for as long as was best for them and for me. I do not feel threatened, nor do I feel less of a mother, because some other person did it longer. I do not envy the fit woman in the photo. I got back to my pre-baby state within a year of giving birth. I looked good then too. My issue is the creepiness of the staging, I know I'm harping, but that's it.

WindSpirit
05-12-2012, 06:40 PM
I hate to break it to you, but this cover is for the mere pleasure of onlookers. Look how much controversy it has caused. Controversial things make people think, too.


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. And people are "talking" about it without thinking? I could see that point.



Way to distort what I said. I meant she was using the child to make her point, not his. I was making a joke. You asked "Why use the child?" It'd be hard to take a picture of a breastfeeding mother without using a child.


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. To you. You're projecting your own judgement on a woman you don't know. I thought she made breastfeeding look completely neutral. Not sick, shameful, creepy or sexual. The only thing that seemed weird to me was the child's age, but I already explained my thought process in deeming it irrelevant. In reality, she can be a wonderful mother or a sick creep. Or anything in between. But we don't know that just by looking at that picture.

What I find ironic is that even though most, if not all, mothers hate it when other people criticize the ways how they raise their children, so many of them more than ready to fall over themselves in order to judge other mothers. So maybe that's one way how the whole issue can be useful. Even if it doesn't prevent one from judging others, maybe the next time they're judged they will be more understanding of it.

allezfred
05-12-2012, 07:10 PM
Breast feeding is done in private, at least in the USA. There are separate rooms with doors for nursing. Why should Time magazine and the mother/child in question make such a public display of it? I find it extremely offensive.

Do you protest at the sight of a breast? :mitchell:

WindSpirit
05-12-2012, 07:14 PM
What I said is not an example of a straw man. You substituted your argument, one that I never made, for my own. It's a straw man if I ever saw one. And you keep doing it still.


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. Change the would to should, and no, you didn't quite say it. You wanted me to say it. You implied that it logically follows what I said. It doesn't.


But I did challenge the notion that something natural belongs in public. A notion I never made.


Your argument was:
A. Natural things belong in public.
B. Breastfeeding is a natural thing, therefore it belongs in public. No, that's not my argument at all. Not even close.


So where does natural belong in the argument? I explained that already, but I'm more than happy to repeat it:


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. If you want to argue with what I actually said, you're more than welcome. If you want to keep challenging the argument you substituted for my own, you're welcome, too. Just don't ask me to defend it.

IceAlisa
05-12-2012, 08:06 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.

That's exactly right. The argument that it's done around the world seems so irrelevant to me. Some people simply don't have a choice. Same with nursing until kindergarten age--some people simply don't have a choice, no other good sources of nutrition.

I've been thinking about the idea of nursing as a source of comfort. What about cuddling your child, holding them, reading to them, talking to them, hugging and kissing them as a source of comfort? I know some Chinese medical massage called Tui Na and have been giving it to Mini ever since he was born. He loves having his back and feet rubbed. In fact, when he was two, at bedtime, he'd stick out his foot from the crib in between the slats and demand: "Foot massage!" It was one of his first expressions. I wonder why Dr. Sears considers nursing as a necessary source of comfort when all of the above are available. The answer is probably why not? I personally wouldn't want to be lactating that long but some people love it a lot, I suppose.

Dr. Sears made this argument in the interview: he said to imagine being with your baby on a deserted island, with no doctors, no one and nothing else there. And so AP is what most mothers would do instinctively in that case. May be, or even likely. They would wear the baby because it could unsafe to let them out of your grasp, they would sleep together for the same reason and they would nurse as long as possible because better sources of nutrition are likely unavailable.

But how is it relevant to the moms here today? They are not on a deserted island. :confused:

Prancer
05-12-2012, 09:02 PM
I wonder why Dr. Sears considers nursing as a necessary source of comfort when all of the above are available.

Does Dr. Sears make an either/or argument like that? I haven't read a lot of AP stuff, but the impression I've always had is that the Sears' are pretty laidback about not thinking a whole lot of things are "necessary" and are very supportive of parents doing whatever they think works best for their families. And I believe they are quite enthusiastic about things like infant massage and reading and cuddling and all that.

If you are really curious, a quick Google search would lead you to his answer about extended breastfeeding: http://www.parenting.com/article/ask-dr-sears-extended-breastfeeding----handling-the-criticism

IceAlisa
05-12-2012, 09:33 PM
He made it in the video posted somewhere on this thread (MSNBC?). He said all of the above, what you said about doing what's best/right for each family, but in the same breath he also added the notion about the deserted island and how AP is the best investment you'd make for your baby. He was talking about AP in general, including baby-wearing, co-sleeping and extended breastfeeding. So it's kind of contradictory. What if you think that AP is not the best for you, are you still making the best investment?

It's not like has has a book to sell or anything...:shuffle:

cruisin
05-12-2012, 09:58 PM
I was making a joke. You asked "Why use the child?" It'd be hard to take a picture of a breastfeeding mother without using a child.

Then I apologize.


To you. You're projecting your own judgement on a woman you don't know. I thought she made breastfeeding look completely neutral. Not sick, shameful, creepy or sexual. The only thing that seemed weird to me was the child's age, but I already explained my thought process in deeming it irrelevant. In reality, she can be a wonderful mother or a sick creep. Or anything in between. But we don't know that just by looking at that picture.

What I find ironic is that even though most, if not all, mothers hate it when other people criticize the ways how they raise their children, so many of them more than ready to fall over themselves in order to judge other mothers. So maybe that's one way how the whole issue can be useful. Even if it doesn't prevent one from judging others, maybe the next time they're judged they will be more understanding of it.

But, you see, I am not criticizing the mother or the way she raised her child. I am criticizing the photo. I doubt the mother had any creative input on the layout. the art director did it. However, the mother might have suggested a little less awkward pose. She may be the best mother since sliced bread, but the photo doesn't show that.

Prancer
05-12-2012, 10:04 PM
What if you think that AP is not the best for you, are you still making the best investment?

Again, I don't think things are quite that either/or.

For example, I wanted to try some sort of herbal treatment for something once and asked my doctor about it. She told me what she thought I should do instead, then gave me the pros and cons of the herbal treatment, and then said, "I think what you want to isn't the best way to do it, but that decision is not mine to make. I see my job as telling you the best way you can do things based on what I know. If you decide that that isn't what works best for you, then my job is to help you get the best out of what you want to do. But I don't think the best you can get out of what you want to do is the best you can do."

That made and makes perfect sense to me. Dr. Sears' way may be the best investment; I am not knowledgable enough on the subject to know. It isn't what I wanted to do, so I chose not to do it. Even if it is the best investment and I am missing out on something (or my kids are), I think my investment is sufficient and works for me, and I have no particular reason to think that Dr. Sears would come after me with a club because I have done it all wrong.

cruisin
05-12-2012, 10:11 PM
That made and makes perfect sense to me. Dr. Sears' way may be the best investment; I am not knowledgable enough on the subject to know. It isn't what I wanted to do, so I chose not to do it. Even if it is the best investment and I am missing out on something (or my kids are), I think my investment is sufficient and works for me, and I have no particular reason to think that Dr. Sears would come after me with a club because I have done it all wrong.

I don't think Dr. Sears, Dr. Spock or any person can possibly know what the best investment is for all families. Every mother, father, and child is different and has different needs. There is no one size fits all and there is no perfect method of child rearing.

Prancer
05-12-2012, 10:25 PM
I don't think Dr. Sears, Dr. Spock or any person can possibly know what the best investment is for all families. Every mother, father, and child is different and has different needs. There is no one size fits all and there is no perfect method of child rearing.

Has someone claimed there is a perfect method of child rearing?

Not that I know of. Dr. Sears has, to the best of my knowledge, never made any such claim.

What Dr. Sears has claimed (according to IceAlisa, anyway), is that AP is the best investment you can make. He offers evidence that it is; do you have evidence to offer that it isn't?

The mere fact that many people believe somethine to be true does not make it so. For all we know, there IS a perfect method to raising children and we don't recognize it.

IceAlisa
05-12-2012, 10:33 PM
You can watch the video and see for yourself. One of Dr. Sears' arguments in the link you posted is that the WHO recommends extended breastfeeding. Does it specifically recommend it for developed countries as well as developing countries?

I would also like to look at the studies that he mentions as I don't consider him an unbiased source (again, he has a book to sell).

Is there a specific age by which the benefits of extended breastfeeding (if they are valid, reliable and statistically significant) stop? Do they ever stop?

However, I don't think anyone has suggested that Dr. Sears would come after anyone not practicing AP. :confused:

If I wanted to prove that AP isn't the best, I'd cherry pick studies that show co-sleeping is associated with SIDS, suffocation, etc. and I even found a study that associated extended breastfeeding with lower bone mineral density in mothers. Can't be of much use to your kid if your bones are brittle. Also, the AAP recommends breastfeeding until 12 months and after that it gets all vague and leaves it up to mom and baby. If it were truly that beneficial to nurse beyond that age, wouldn't the AAP make a more time-specific recommendation?

rjblue
05-12-2012, 11:07 PM
Well- I think that the fact that fake plastic breast and nipples filled with imitation human milk are fed to babies in public is disgusting! And it's a slippery slope. We'll soon have fake plastic penises being inserted in vaginas in public next! Where will it all end!