But I like it even more.
PUBLIC OPINION > Time's Breastfeeding Cover Went Too Far
SodaHead Living
2012/05/11 13:00:00
Anyone who got a glimpse of the cover of the latest issue of Time magazine will have that image forever emblazoned in their fragile memory banks. It depicts Jamie Lynne Grumet, an attractive blonde mother, with her 3-year-old son standing on a chair in front of her, mouth latched onto her left breast. The caption is, "Are You Mom Enough?: Why attachment parenting drives some mothers to extremes." Regardless of the article's intent, the image is striking and, some feel, a little bit... provocative. We asked the public if the cover went too far.
Well, it didn't top Google trends because it was "perfectly acceptable." First of all, the kid's almost four. That alone is awkward to the max. What is he going to think when he gets a little bit older? Second of all, the photographer who took that also took pictures of three other mothers who are breastfeeding their older children. Must they use the attractive blonde for the cover? Some said it looks like an act of pedophilia at first glance. Defenders argued that the public has no right to dictate how she should raise her child.
Christians Can't Stand It
Typically, when religion and politics play a dividing role, politics has the stronger pull. This time, it was religion. Christians were 33% more likely to say the magazine went too far, presumably because of the image's borderline inappropriateness. Atheists, however, were pretty split.
Typically, when religion and politics play a dividing role, politics has the stronger pull. This time, it was religion. Christians were 33% more likely to say the magazine went too far, presumably because of the image's borderline inappropriateness. Atheists, however, were pretty split.Men Don't Mind as Much
Both genders sided against the cover, but men were significantly less likely to point fingers. It's tough to say exactly why that is, but some of the comments -- "I'm jealous!" "Can I take the 4-year-old's place?" "Crazy mom doesn't look half bad" -- offered a clue. Awkward? Certainly, for most. But for some guys, the kid is just an inconvenient obstruction.
Both genders sided against the cover, but men were significantly less likely to point fingers. It's tough to say exactly why that is, but some of the comments -- "I'm jealous!" "Can I take the 4-year-old's place?" "Crazy mom doesn't look half bad" -- offered a clue. Awkward? Certainly, for most. But for some guys, the kid is just an inconvenient obstruction.Married Mind It a Lot
Age didn't seem to correlate, nor did parenthood, but relationship status had a big impact. Married voters were 11% more likely than singles to disapprove, and 20% more likely than unmarried voters in a relationship.
Age didn't seem to correlate, nor did parenthood, but relationship status had a big impact. Married voters were 11% more likely than singles to disapprove, and 20% more likely than unmarried voters in a relationship.If you'd like to vote on this question, dig deeper into the demographics, or engage in existing discussion about the topic, visit our poll about Time's breastfeeding cover. We'd love to hear from you!
children should not be born just for the sake of it, but only if they can grow and have all the advantages there are....parents die, children live on, and need educations, and jobs, and be able to provide for themselves, and not spend their lives living on the public dole....at least in this country....I believe in birth control, and wish more people would use it....and not just women....Just because you can reproduce, does not mean you should...
I believe in the natural unhindered flow of human life, welcoming the natural proliferation of the human race, but with individual liberty comes personal responsibility. Ideally, children should have not only a mother, but a responsible father who sticks around and helps. Pushing "birth control" works against that, by letting guys get their jollies of sex, but without the proper responsibility.
Birthing babies is just as natural and proper, as the heart beating or breathing. In nature, life seeks to spread into most every available niche. Why should humans be exempt, when we can use intelligence to alter nature to, all the better, hold more people?
However, 3 years seems an awful long time. I just don't get it? Children with teeth ought to eat solid food. And is cow milk really so bad, especially if government would get out of the way, and let people purchase raw milk, if they think that better? It seems a lot easier to justify children that old that are still co-sleeping in the family bed, as that long was the custom and tradition, especially back when homes were small, before automatic home heating systems. Parental discretion, seems to be the obvious standard for some such things.
Is our American society, just all wrong?
I nursed for 21 months. Teeth were never an issue, and since my daughter refused every bottle on earth, I had no choice.
continue to feed in that manner....but the mother has to stay healthy as well, and needs nourishing food...to be able to nurse....
Further, to make my point, we do not need fur to keep warm and protected any more, so there is no reason to kill animals for their fur...
What a terrible disservice to mothers, that breastfeeding was though to be "low-class" or something?
But making a spectacle of breastfeeding a 3 year old, 5 or 6 year-old, seems to be just provocative and wrong. But then, would I expect such a worldly magazine as Time or NewsWeek, to ever reliably tell the truth for long? Aren't those New-World-Order-criminal-elit... publications?
Why couldn't they have just put a cute and adorable baby breastfeeding, on the cover? Then we'd have to say, isn't that cute, normal, natural, or whatever?
TIMES used that to push a theory and make breast feeding look vile and nasty. They unfairly represented it as a bad thing, I guess in order to bolster the sales at formula makers companies.
Formula is horrid stuff.
As I think matters of co-sleeping, and how much modesty and the closing of bedroom doors, have to be decided by the parents.
After they are a little older ( past 1) co-sleeping can be a good way to help them learn to go to sleep when the lights go off, but after a certain point, it is more of a wall in the parents relationship.
We did some co sleeping to help her learn to sleep when the lights-lights off indicated close the eyes and sleep time, and it was a faster way to teach independent sleep.
That part of it-totally at the parents choice as long as they don't have pre teens sleeping together with them. Which is just icky,.
Ideally, I'd like to see older children have their own bedroom, but only if space permits. Better to have more children, regardless of lack of space.
Many health organizations feel that the one year currently recommended by the AAP is too low....I have heard even the AAP is planning to change the recommendation at this point. The WHO recommend breastfeeding exlusively for 6 months and than continuing until AT LEAST 2 years (with the addition of solid food), longer is mother and child want. The health benefits of breastmilk are MANY and they are not just about nutrition....
I'm not even joking. That picture will stick.
I don't really care.
There’s Nothing natural or significant about a BIG KID who should be able to feed himself dangling from his mother’s breast to “depict” breastfeeding.
For my personal taste, I find this to be unnatural because we are NOT in a 3rd World Country, whereas women in 3rd World Countries understandably so breastfeed their children as long as they can for the sake of keeping her child alive!
Furthermore, the mother on this article and any mother in our Country that chooses to go in public with BIG KIDS and breastfeed them are just REPULSIVE!!!
Please do this in the privacy of your own home…
Thank You =)...
"That was hardly porn. It was a topless woman on a tractor. You know what they call that in Europe? A cereal commercial."- Modern Family
For the sake of argument, how about we compare autism rates in nations with mostly breastfeeding to nations with mostly man made formula. See, easy to determine which is superior. Breast, as God created them, provide superior nutrition, and your study was done by formula companies-wonder what their interest in that was.
Cow's milk is bad for humans. I think uni got the 2 mixed up.