If you honestly believe "Any publicity is good publicity," take a look at the controversy surrounding the TIME magazine breastfeeding cover fronting this week's issue. While the attendant article discusses Dr. William Sears and his approach to attachment parenting, the cover has taken on an infamous life of its own. Granted, extended breastfeeding is one aspect of attachment parenting, but despite the protestations of the photographer behind the image, TIME's cover shot aims to be provocative, titillating, and attention-grabbing.
And that's the problem. Did TIME really want to foster a discussion about modern parenting and the many theories of what's best for our children, or simply turn heads and sell magazines? And why throw the cover mother-and-child duo, 26-year-old Jamie Grumet and 3-year-old Aram, under the bus with a pose that doesn't foster warm and fuzzy feelings but instead elicits a "Did she really do that?" reaction?
Even the cover mom admitted, "There were other photos that were more nurturing, kind of like our daily life, the way we do it. I don't think it would have been quite as provocative,"
How different our reactions would be if Grumet were wearing a long-sleeved blouse unbuttoned to her breast (as many nursing moms do) instead of skin-tight leggings and a tank; or if her nursing son Aram was clearly 3 (instead of looking like a hulking 7-year-old) and was not wearing an army-grey shirt, grey and olive camo pants and tough-guy footwear.
The image does not reflect the love and closeness that is shared when a mother nurses her child. Because those emotions are absent from both participants in the photo, the act doesn't appear nurturing but looks like something darker, with subtle undertones that make most viewers uncomfortable.
There's been a lot of fuss made about the "war on women" in political circles, but a recent slew of "ewww, that's gross" articles about celebrity moms makes it clear that it's open season on women everywhere and mothers are not exempt. TVGuide.com notes that along with the TIME cover are other stories about "atypical parenting":
Last month a video of Alicia Silverstone regurgitating food into her son's mouth went viral. Hilary Duff also recently admitted to keeping her son's umbilical cord stump in a drawer, while Mad Men's January Jones said in March that she takes pills made from her placenta.
While some celebrities have shared their poorly-informed opinions via Twitter, actress and breastfeeding advocate Mayim Bialik of The Big Bang Theory spoke to CNN about attachment parenting. A mom who breastfeeds her own 3-year-old, Bialik explained to Suzanne Malveaux, "The concepts of believing that a child has a voice, whether it's a newborn voice or a 1-year-old voice, that's what then forms all your decisions about how long you breastfeed, how long you sleep safely with your child...how long you let their needs be part of yours."
While some are saying that this attention has helped launch public discourse on attachment parenting, more snide comments are circulating (like former Cosmo and Glamour magazine editor Bonnie Fuller's irresponsible remark that extreme attachment parenters are nuts) than thoughtful assessments along the lines of Mayim Bialik's.
The irony of the story breaking on the Friday before Mother's Day is not lost on me. In fact, I waited to write about it until today because criticizing the actions of a loving mom seemed ill-advised on the eve of this special day for mothers.
In the end, this story is essentially a non-issue especially in a world where bad parenting injures, maims, and impairs so many children for life...and kills untold others. Those are the stories that need to be covered and discussed widely, so that when a parent fails a larger network exists as a safety net operating under that child to see him/her safely through to adulthood. We need to focus on improved social services for at-risk children and better support mechanisms for women (especially single-parent heads of households) who are barely keeping it together for themselves and their families. This is where our energies should be spent instead of worrying about a magazine cover that misrepresents the article it illustrates.
For a much better take on intensive motherhood (and how feminism leads to better mothering), read Belinda Luscombe's commentary at Time.com. As she points out:
The affluent, slightly older and well-educated moms who are most likely perusing parenting books like those written by William Sears have already tasted financial independence, self-sufficiency and freedom of movement. They quickly become acutely aware that parenting severely curtails those things. And they want to make their sacrifices mean something. If they're giving up so much to raise this new human, they're going to make sure the kid is raised like a blue chip stock price....
We've educated women to forge a new path. Why did we think they'd treat raising children any differently?
Condom distribution in high schools and sex education classes that cover methods of contraception have long come under fire from parents, religious leaders, and some school officials who believe the above actions send a message to teens that having sex is okay. Like most teen pregnancy prevention advocates, I don't agree with that view but I can comprehend where those folks are coming from.
But a recent Tennessee State Senate decision is just a big box of crazy. It makes no sense. That legislative body voted 28-1 to ban any sex education instructors -- either within the school or brought in through an outside group -- from discussing or promoting "gateway sexual activity." Since "gateway sexual activity" is never concretely spelled out, the interpretation is up for grabs...and could include kissing or even handholding.
Does that mean a boy asking to carry a girl's books constitutes sexual harassment? Could a study date for a biology test be construed as a "gateway sexual activity"? Will GSAs enter our lingo just as PDAs (public displays of affection) once did?
I'm intentionally being ridiculous to illustrate the ridiculousness of this whole idea. Instead of beating around the bush, why don't they just say it? Clearly Tennessee lawmakers want abstinence -- and only abstinence -- to be taught in schools. But narrow-minded ignorance has led them to make a mistake of epic proportions. Countless studies over the years have proven that abstinence doesn't work in preventing teen pregnancy. What works is arming teens with the facts about sex education, contraception, STDs and personal responsibility. When we do this, we impact teen pregnancy statistics for the better. The latest evidence was put forth by the CDC in April: teen birth rates have dramatically dropped in recent years due to increased contraceptive use on the part of teens having sex.
Wishing that teens behave a certain way won't make it so. And in a state where handholding might constitute a "gateway sexual activity," it's the teens who will pay for the squeamishness of those adults who refuse to face reality.
Tennessee lawmakers know what the problem is: the state is ranked as having the 10th highest teen birth rate in the U.S. with 43.2 births per thousand teenage girls ages 15-19. But they're going about "problem-solving" the wrong way.
Studies have shown that abstinence pledges not only don't work but also put teens at a higher risk of not using birth control when they do engage in sexual activity. As one researcher put it, "Taking a pledge doesn't seem to make any difference at all in any sexual behavior....But it does seem to make a difference in condom use and other forms of birth control that is quite striking."
So if they want to lower the teen birth rate in Tennessee, scaring kids off of handholding is not the way to go. Legislators may think they can influence outcomes, but in reality it's the parents -- particularly mothers -- who have the biggest impact on a teen's decision whether or not to have sex.
In a year when nearly all conservative candidates are running campaigns that rail against too much government intervention, can't they see how this particular decision has gone over the edge?
Related articles:
Have you heard the one about the PUMA who's looking for a divorced man? It's not a joke but a new meaning for the term that previously described a young cougar (a woman in her thirties interested in younger males.)
What the new definition of puma does is glamorize divorced men for better or worse -- a trend that has caught on in the UK but not in the US as of this writing (thank god.) When we glamorize divorced women, I'll be all for it. Until then, let's reserve the use of puma for those mountain cats and that brand of footwear -- and leave women out of it.
Related article:
What is a puma woman? Definition of a puma and difference betwen puma and cougar
While issues surrounding contraceptive coverage have become a hot potato in this election year, it's clear that access to contraception has had a significant impact on teenage pregnancy and teen birth in the United States. Findings released earlier this month by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveal that teenage birth rates have not only continued to decline but have dropped to historic lows. The good news is that the trend appears to be widespread and reflected across most of the country (with the exception of three states named here.)
Teens have sex. It's a fact of our society. You can't turn on MTV or ABC Family without seeing shows that depict teen moms and teen parents. Despite the "best" efforts of some parents and school board members who don't want sex education or condom distribution in high schools, when teens have information about and access to contraceptives, if they're engaging in sex or planning to, many will act responsibly and seek protection for themselves and their partners.
Vows of purity or abstinence pledges can be laid aside in a heartbeat. But when there's a condom or other barrier method in place, that's where teen pregnancy prevention occurs.
Photo © Darren Robb/Photographer's Choice/Getty Images
Related articles:
