Friday, May 11, 2012

Really? The Cover?

Remember when Time magazine used to be awesome?  OK, maybe I'm exaggerating just a tad with the use of the word "awesome".  But it did used to be a great source of comprehensive news stories from around the globe.  The journalism was good and the topics were good.  Oh, but that Time seems to have come and gone.  And in its place, we are left with the sort of Time magazine that has this on its cover.  Behold!

Now, if you're like me, you took one look at that and your brain came up with the omnipresent "Oh, what the hell is that?" inquiry.  And I really wish that I could go into a lot of detail about what the article was actually about, but I'm not about to subscribe to Time.com in order to do that.  Besides, I highly doubt that anything in the article is going to sway me away from what I have to say about their cover.  And just for the record, the picture depicts a one Jamie Lynne Gurnet as she breast feeds her four-year old son.  Good Lord...

First of all, I'm not against breastfeeding.  You want to breast feed, have at it!  You want to breast feed in public, I'd prefer it if you'd be discreet, but again, have at it!  You want to put a picture on the cover of Time magazine of yourself breast feeding your kid who is almost five, I'm going to recoil in horror.  And it has nothing to do with partially seeing a breast!  Breasts are simply lovely!  It's really hard to get around that fact.  Breasts are gooooooood.  But to me, if you're putting that sort of picture out for all the world to see, you're about something more than just how you want to nourish your child.  You're looking for some sort of attention and you've chosen what I feel is a highly inappropriate way to get said attention. 

Speaking of attention, what about the attention that your kid is going to get out of this?  I'm sure that he'll be thrilled, just thrilled, when he's a teenager and his friends find out about this (and they will) and then the picture of him suckling on his mother when he's a four-year old, like a newborn calf, is going to cause some problems for him.  It might even be causing some problems now for him.  Why would you put your son in a position like that?  Why would you place your small child in such a vulnerable position?  I can't agree with that choice on any level. 

Something about this whole mode/style of parenting doesn't sit well with me.  It seems to be more about a certain group of people who are intent on pushing their particular lifestyle down the throats (no pun intended) of others.  I will never understand that part of humans.  Why, if they like something and someone else doesn't, the former will feel the need to make sure to flaunt the thing that the other person doesn't like right in front of them?  I don't get that.  And breast feeding your kid when they're no longer an infant seems to fall right along that line. 

I understand that there's the whole bonding issue thing.  But you can bond with your kid without breast feeding them.  I promise.  It's been done gazillions of times before and people seem to be just fine! And if it's really just about the nutrients that the kid can get from breast milk, can't you just pump and have the kid drink it after it's out of your body?  I seriously think that if you have some "need" or "desire" to have your kid breast feed after the kid is no longer a baby, you need to take a long, hard look at what your real motives are.  And if you're not willing to do that, what say you stop trying to actively push that sort of "parenting method" upon other people.  (Have you ever noticed that when people are doing something that is "controversial" (eg, crazy as a fruit bat) that all they want to do is tell you what a terrible person you are for not doing it?)  And if you're not willing to do that, what say you just take a baby step and not have a picture of you breast feeding your school-aged child on the cover of a national publication, eh? 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

No comments: