You don’t want to look at it, but you can’t look away. God forbid your children see it, what will happen when they view such a corruptible, sensational image?!
Oh my, it’s a breast! With a child old enough to walk, talk and ask for food attached to it. A child doing what children are meant to do.
Getting attention.
That’s right, the biggest—perhaps only—winners in this cover story on breastfeeding and attachment parenting are Time magazine’s publicity, marketing and circulation departments. That’s what the cover image was designed to do: Get attention.
And it has gotten lots of attention. Blogs, news websites, network news shows...you name it, everyone has weighed in on the 'controversial' articles and accompanying photos. It's been almost as hotly contested as the actual practice of breastfeeding older children.
It seems the topic of motherhood and how women mother is the hottest economic product around these days. Politicians use it to generate votes and contributions; for evidence, we can look at the protracted debate over women, reproductive rights and equal pay (among other issues).
Thousands of women make a living (some more so than others) by capitalizing on their mommy-hood. Their ‘mommy blogs’ generate attention and sponsorships based on their writing about all sorts of mother, family and child-related subjects. Look at me: while my columns are technically not a blog, part of my expertise and opinionating is based on the sheer fact that I’m raising children.
And magazines and other media use the topic of motherhood to increase readership and viewers in an increasingly competitive marketplace. (Given that it’s my topic and lead image for this column, I guess you can say I’m guilty as well.)
But when you add up the media consumption, buying power and influence women wield, it makes for a very strong reason why there’s such an obsession with women who are moms.
Moms are influencers, consumers, movers, shakers, and we’re a force to be reckoned with.
But why are what moms do, choose and are always such a battleground? Why must it be up for debate at all?
Take this week’s Time cover and featured story, about attachment parenting. Supporters and adherents say this ‘hip’ kind of modern parenting technique is more natural and is actually based on anthropologically ‘traditional’ choices. In some ways, that’s right. If you look into the etymological development for the word mama, the mostly universal way a child calls his mother, you’ll find that ma ma is often the sound or word foundation for ‘breast’. Think mammary and mammography.
A breast is how mammals feed their young.
So why is it so shocking and (pardon the pun) titillating? Starting even with the headline, Time asks, “Are You Mom Enough?” To me, that’s the more controversial thing we need to focus on -- why does mothering even need to be competitive?
Why does anyone need to diminish some mothers at the expense of others at all? Whether it’s French author Elisabeth Badinter whose feminist book, “The Conflict,” Modern Motherhood practices (as my Patch colleague Lisa Bigelow will write about this week), or politicians promoting traditional marriage of one woman/one man, or parents in your own town who battle over working mothers versus stay-at-home moms, why does it have to be one or the other?
Why do we belittle the choice made by the mom on the cover of Time? That’s her parenting choice, and it works for her. It may not be your way of approaching being a parent or mine, and that’s okay. Who is someone to say that two women in a loving, committed partnership (hopefully married if they so choose) can’t be great parents, even though they ‘lack male presence’ (says who?)?
We’ve gotten so wrapped up in my-way-is-better-than-yours that judgment rules the day over compassion, acceptance and pure liberty. The mothers described in the Time article aren’t making choices that impact anyone else, except those to whom they are moms. And unless their children are in direct danger, it shouldn’t be anyone else’s business but theirs.
When we're pushed into the 'mommy wars,' we battle over the ‘right’ way, the ‘better’ way to be, and we lose sight of what works for me is likely something very different than what works for you. That choice is what makes the world go ‘round.
But it’s certainly easier to marginalize women than to take on more important issues of better healthcare for women and children, paid maternity leave and fair pay practice.
Let’s acknowledge the difference between the breast that’s on the cover of Time from the ones gracing the cover of Playboy, and accept that Time has only gotten us talking about it because they wanted some attention. So childish of them, no?
The mother in me says that what the folks at Time really need is to be put in a time out.
Check back Thursday for another view presented by "Patch Back" columnist Lisa Bigelow.
