Log In Sign Up

Time Magazine bf cover controversy


Forum: Heated Debates

Notices

Welcome to the JustMommies Message Boards.

We pride ourselves on having the friendliest and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment and register for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers. If you have any problems registering please drop an email to boards@justmommies.com.

Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!

Like Tree6Likes

Reply Post New Topic
  Subscribe To Heated Debates LinkBack Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
  #1  
May 12th, 2012, 08:12 AM
Tammyjh's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North
Posts: 7,824
You can view the cover here
TIME Magazine Cover: Are You Mom Enough? - May 21, 2012 - Parenting - Mother - Babies - Children - U.S.

Commentary here
Time cover sells out moms to sell magazines « Breastfeeding Medicine
Quote:

But rather than supporting mothers to follow their own instincts to meet
their children’s needs, Time magazine put an enormous 3-year-old, dressed in
very “big kid” clothes, on the cover with his mom dressed in a tank top and
skinny jeans. Every aspect of the photo is engineered to evoke sexual
undertones, and Time’s tabloid approach has (predictably) brought out a mob of
people saying breastfeeding is “sick” and “perverted.”

The cover not only castigates mothers and children who practice extended
nursing, but it also lends legitimacy to strangers who assail moms for nursing
any infant in public as “nasty” and “indecent.” Recent stories of nursing
mothers ejected from big box stores, courtrooms and churches demonstrate that it
is not easy to be a breastfeeding mother in America. When you follow medical
recommendations, you face public humiliation.

Time’s cover throws fuel on that fire, and it’s a slap in the face for the
moms who are trying to do right for their own health and the health of their
children. And that’s a very unhappy Mother’s Day present.
Thoughts?
__________________
Tammy, Mom to
Abby (19), Kacie (13), Chase (11), & Jacob (7)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"...They're supposed to make you miserable! That's why they're family!" ~ Bobby ~ Supernatural
Reply With Quote
  #2  
May 12th, 2012, 10:15 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,684
Totally agree. The cover had nothing to do with the article and was all about shock value.
__________________
J Married to D 08.21.2009
Bonus Mama to R (14) and M (7)
Warm up your home with a fabulous warmer and some of our scentsational scents! PM me for details!!!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
May 12th, 2012, 10:42 AM
Frackel's Avatar DOh!
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: In my house :p
Posts: 1,281
I don't understand the commentary in that second article to be honest.

1-I don't see the sexual undertones at all, not even a tiny bit
2-The kid's size has nothing to do with it(aside from showing that not just babies benefit)-which isn't a bad thing
3-I don't understand how it's a slap in the face to anyone, I think someone's looking to be offended and really reaching
4-What do their clothes have to do with anything?

I guess I'm an idiot because I just don't get what the big deal is. If anything this cover should be a GOOD thing to more moms. People want there to be less stigma around breastfeeding in general, but also extended breastfeeding, right? Well then why on earth would you start looking for all the bad things(again, bad things I don't see) when someone makes extended breastfeeding a, well lack of better term here, public thing. It's like activists, if you want to call them that, simply want their cake and eat it too. What the hell.
Not all moms are cookie cutter moms. Some wear skinny jeans, tank tops and nurse their enormous three year olds while they stand on chairs. Deal with it ladies.(and I use that term very loosely).
Not every bf moment is a kodak, tear in the eye, supper warm and fuzzy, cuddling in mom's arms sort of moment. Again I say, deal with it.

I figure the more people see things, like this, the less likely at least some will be to comment, stare, or otherwise think ignorant thoughts about both breastfeeding and the moms who choose to go that route(regardless of age). It just seems logical. Yeah, there will always be people who place a stigma on breastfeeding, even more on extended, sometimes even more on doing it in public. You can't change that. But there are likely millions out there who have ignorant opinions you CAN change. You're not going to do that by only showing pictures, and sharing stories of those soft and fluffy moments.

So that's what I see when I look at that pic. I see statements being made, and even more that could be made because of it...all absolutely positive.

Some people really will look for wrong in everything. That isn't limited to the people who put a stigma around breastfeeding. It also includes the people who look at that picture and sit there pointing out all the wrong, that likely only exists in their own heads.
I was reading through some of the other commentary on that second link(comments section) and I see people calling the picture manipulative. Well, yeah, all pictures are in some way. Their basic premise of a pic is to invoke some sort of reaction-usually thought. But that doesn't have to be a negative one. I just don't understand all the hatred towards media that does show breastfeeding in scenarios that might actually not fit into a cookie cutter lifestyle.

There are comments saying this is a distorted picture of breastfeeding. How the hell do people come to these conclusions. It's a mom, and her child, and he's nursing-how is that NOT breastfeeding? It's not distorted at all. He's not an infant, she's not likely to be sitting on the couch, nursing pillow in lap, football holding him, being waited on hand and foot by her partner in life, while he nurses away. Life doesn't really work that way, for most moms.
I just don't get what picture all those commenting really want portrayed. There is no one size fits all when it comes to raising kids, generally speaking. Breastfeeding is no exception to that rule.
I really don't like the "the picture is not what a normal breastfeeding relationship is like" sort of comments. Who are we to judge what's normal for another family? I mean, seriously. I wonder if all those close minded people commenting realize their comments are just as close minded. They're the ones finding sexual innuendos, undertones, and thinking this is a bad portrayal of a mom and her child. Seems they're 100% in the wrong.

The stigmas aren't going anywhere at the rate folks are going these days with promoting breastfeeding in general(well not at a rate I think is as beneficial as it could be, I do realize the rates are changing in this country). I'm glad to see pics like this, personally. I think they're far more beneficial to knocking down the stigmas than most of what we see. We're a very visual society. You can make as many articles as you want, give people all the printed information you want, they're still going to look towards visual confirmation that this isn't what they think it is.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4  
May 12th, 2012, 10:56 AM
Tammyjh's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North
Posts: 7,824
Has anyone read the article? I'm curious as to the title. "Are you mom enough?" Are you mom enough for what?
__________________
Tammy, Mom to
Abby (19), Kacie (13), Chase (11), & Jacob (7)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"...They're supposed to make you miserable! That's why they're family!" ~ Bobby ~ Supernatural
Reply With Quote
  #5  
May 12th, 2012, 11:49 AM
Frackel's Avatar DOh!
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: In my house :p
Posts: 1,281
Haven't read the article entirely(not a subscriber, lol), but from what I gather, it's about the origins of attachment parenting, how beneficial to mom and child, and includes info about extended breastfeeding(hence the use of the "enormous" 3 yr old to make a point).

But it's not the article under scrutiny, it's the cover photo. I actually haven't yet seen a complaint about the article itself, lol. At least not from anyone who's read it, seen a few nasty comments elsewhere on what people assumed the article was about, though.

Interesting commentary from Time's managing editor about the photo...

Time magazine's Richard Stengel defends breast-feeding cover in Indianapolis | The Star Press | thestarpress.com
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6  
May 12th, 2012, 12:29 PM
Tammyjh's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North
Posts: 7,824
I know the article is about Dr. Sears and attachment parenting but am curious as to what the title is all about. I don't subscribe either so all I got was a few short blurbs.

The title is being questioned. Maybe not quite as much as the pic but it is being written about.
Time Magazine Asks "Are You Mom Enough?" Every Mom Should Be Offended - Forbes
Quote:

The staff writer at TIME behind the cover article, Kate Pickert, is interviewed about her article, and
in her opinion, the idea that working moms can practice attachment parenting
is not valid
__________________
Tammy, Mom to
Abby (19), Kacie (13), Chase (11), & Jacob (7)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"...They're supposed to make you miserable! That's why they're family!" ~ Bobby ~ Supernatural
Reply With Quote
  #7  
May 12th, 2012, 12:30 PM
plan4fate's Avatar I may bend, but not break
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 26,101
Send a message via MSN to plan4fate
The general public sees only the pictures.

But the mommies are seeing the photo, the words "attachment parenting" and then the lovely "are you mom enough?" and equating it to "if you don't breast feed this long and ap then you aren't mom enough.

Like TP and AP mom's needed more to fuel the fires.



I quite enjoyed this guy's take on it though...

From Breasts to Boobs and Back Again

Quote:
It’s puritanical, and all based on highly subjective feelings. There are simply no facts (that I’m aware of) that show nursing after a certain age is bad for a kid. Since it’s such a personal thing, maybe we should just leave it up to the mother and child to decide what’s best. Women are already fighting enough battles over what they’re allowed to do with their bodies. Let’s not add another one.
ctanis likes this.
__________________
~TTC #1 together 2 years and counting ~


Awesome siggy made by Jaidynsmum
Matthew and Mark 08/24/2005 9w1d, Mattie Anne 04/07/2008 8w Mel and Dee 01/19/2010 (8 weeks) and 5 chemical pregnancies
Hope 07/22/2012@4w1d,Konnor 11/24/2012@3w6d,"Emmy"1/15/2013@ 3w6d,Ronen 02/10/2013@3w5d,Joy 07/19/2013@3w6d, "Pea" 09/06/2013@ 3w3d


Hashimoto's Thyroiditis, PCOS, Insulin resistant.
150mcg Synthyroid, 500mg Metformin (aiming for 1500mg)
Reply With Quote
  #8  
May 12th, 2012, 01:26 PM
*Leslie*'s Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,966
Send a message via AIM to *Leslie* Send a message via Yahoo to *Leslie*
Some of the other pictures shot for this were much better and I think they would be better suited to show support for extended breastfeeding. I think as a whole, most kids aren't breastfed standing on a chair like that. I think if they had shown a more nurturing pose (and there were some shot that were awesome), they would have done a better job at creating positive dialogue.
Tammyjh and AtomicMama like this.
__________________


TTC our Rainbow Baby to complete our family.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
May 12th, 2012, 03:11 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,021
I want to read this article, ive reserved a copy of the magazine from my library, so when it comes in and I get a chance to read it ill have a better understanding of what the article is actually saying.

From what ive heard it isnt very complimentary to anyone, it paints people who do practice attachment parenting as extremists and those who dont as not good enough parents. But then I havent read it myself so I dont quite know.

I think the photo was posed to cause controversy. Im by absolutely no means an extended brestfeeder, as soon as mine could be off, they were off, however I do not begrudge anyone who does practice extended breastfeeding, and I really do believe that if the posing was set in a way that appeared more nurturing, instead of challenging, the amount of controversy that has sparked, wouldnt have.

I think its just a very inflammatory cover, the challenging stare, the fact that this child looks much older than three, the wording "are you mom enough?" its pretty much begging people to be angry with it, which, in the end, sells more copies because people are going to want to know what this is all about.

Add on: And in the end, its a very easy topic to get people inflamed about. Everyone thinks their version of parenting is right, if they didnt, then they wouldnt be doing it, so its opening up the opportunity to either judge the woman in the magazine, or judge everyone who isnt like her.

Its a really easy topic to blow up like this, and TIME have done a very good job of sparking a controversy out of nothing to sell more copies. Kudos to them.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
May 12th, 2012, 07:43 PM
AtomicMama's Avatar CopperBoom!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 14,707
I agree with Leslie 100%. I'm curious about the picture that they chose for the cover.

Personally, I'm more interested in what the article has to say than the photo on the cover.
__________________
Amy: Wife to my Handsome Husband Mommy to my superhero, Max (3) and Luckiest Bonus Mama to Sammy (5)

Reply With Quote
  #11  
May 12th, 2012, 09:56 PM
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 444
It's the typical hot mom on the cover. (but then what magazine has a woman that is only mildly attractive?) And the child and mother aren't looking at each other. It would have looked more sincere if she were sitting down and the child were sitting on her lap instead of having them do that ridiculous pose. I dunno it just looks so fake to me. I have nothing wrong with a mother breast feeding that long or of a mother breast feeding her child on the cover of a magazine.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
May 13th, 2012, 07:38 AM
*Leslie*'s Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,966
Send a message via AIM to *Leslie* Send a message via Yahoo to *Leslie*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rinchan View Post
It's the typical hot mom on the cover. (but then what magazine has a woman that is only mildly attractive?) And the child and mother aren't looking at each other. It would have looked more sincere if she were sitting down and the child were sitting on her lap instead of having them do that ridiculous pose. I dunno it just looks so fake to me. I have nothing wrong with a mother breast feeding that long or of a mother breast feeding her child on the cover of a magazine.
They took a picture just like that and put it in the online version of the article, along with some other women and their extended breastfeeding children. ALL of those pictures, IMO, were beautiful and would have been much better suited for a real discussion.
__________________


TTC our Rainbow Baby to complete our family.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
May 13th, 2012, 07:58 AM
Tammyjh's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North
Posts: 7,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by lesliek0211 View Post
Some of the other pictures shot for this were much better and I think they would be better suited to show support for extended breastfeeding. I think as a whole, most kids aren't breastfed standing on a chair like that. I think if they had shown a more nurturing pose (and there were some shot that were awesome), they would have done a better job at creating positive dialogue.
I agree with this. A more natural shot would have been better.
__________________
Tammy, Mom to
Abby (19), Kacie (13), Chase (11), & Jacob (7)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"...They're supposed to make you miserable! That's why they're family!" ~ Bobby ~ Supernatural
Reply With Quote
  #14  
May 13th, 2012, 06:09 PM
K.A.T's Avatar Enjoying her Sticky Bun
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 13,499
I'm just glad that this gets people thinking and talking. I'm not a fan of the pic or the title. But it did catch the attention of the public, which is what I hope Time was aiming for.
__________________

❤ Big Thanks to Vicki, trishosaurus, & Shortcake for the great siggies of my kids! ❤
Liz (36) Kev (35)
Tiana (16) Doni (14) Lil Kev (8) Ethan 7/23/12 Lil Roo 10/29/11



Reply With Quote
  #15  
May 14th, 2012, 06:29 AM
Repti.Mom's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 15,506
Time magazine desperately trying to sell their product. Of COURSE they chose this picture for the cover.
__________________







Reply With Quote
  #16  
May 14th, 2012, 11:14 AM
plan4fate's Avatar I may bend, but not break
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 26,101
Send a message via MSN to plan4fate
apparently the magazine is covered up in a lot of stores, just like playboy would be. As a blog I read pointed out today... the cover of Shape and Maxim show more skin!

grrrr
__________________
~TTC #1 together 2 years and counting ~


Awesome siggy made by Jaidynsmum
Matthew and Mark 08/24/2005 9w1d, Mattie Anne 04/07/2008 8w Mel and Dee 01/19/2010 (8 weeks) and 5 chemical pregnancies
Hope 07/22/2012@4w1d,Konnor 11/24/2012@3w6d,"Emmy"1/15/2013@ 3w6d,Ronen 02/10/2013@3w5d,Joy 07/19/2013@3w6d, "Pea" 09/06/2013@ 3w3d


Hashimoto's Thyroiditis, PCOS, Insulin resistant.
150mcg Synthyroid, 500mg Metformin (aiming for 1500mg)
Reply With Quote
  #17  
May 14th, 2012, 12:39 PM
Cereal Killer's Avatar I'm climbin' in yo window
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: next to Chuck Norris
Posts: 7,371
I wrote a blog about this. The photo, coupled with the title, is intentionally polarizing. I linked the other pictures Leslie mentioned. I wish they would have chosen one of those.
__________________



Reply With Quote
  #18  
May 14th, 2012, 12:43 PM
Tammyjh's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North
Posts: 7,824
I agree. I don't see any reason why the magazine cover should be hidden. If its for showing too much skin, then just about every magazine out there needs to be hidden at one time or another.
__________________
Tammy, Mom to
Abby (19), Kacie (13), Chase (11), & Jacob (7)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"...They're supposed to make you miserable! That's why they're family!" ~ Bobby ~ Supernatural
Reply With Quote
  #19  
May 14th, 2012, 01:58 PM
tiredmom's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,987
I wonder if they would put a brown paper bag over this too?

__________________
I’m Sarah (39), wife to Chris (40), mom to three boys (age 0, 3 and 5)
Reply With Quote
  #20  
May 14th, 2012, 08:35 PM
foxfire_ga79
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiredmom View Post
I wonder if they would put a brown paper bag over this too?

LMFAO that's so going on my FB right this second.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Topic Tools Search this Topic
Search this Topic:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:40 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0