Thursday, May 17, 2012

Got Milk?

Many of you know that I became an aunt for the first time in March.  Since I don’t have any children of my own, I’ve really learned from my sister about what new moms have to go through; sleepless nights, crazy hormones and breastfeeding – which can be a lot more complicated than I ever thought.

Now I’m not a person easily offended, and I definitely don’t get offended when mothers have to breastfeed their babies in public. That being said, I was shocked when I saw the cover of Time magazine last week in which Jamie Lynn Grumet, 26, was featured breastfeeding her 3 year old son.  You can see this cover, which has caused a lot of controversy here: http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20120521,00.html

 The article which accompanied the photo was on “attachment parenting,” which encourages parents to be “physically and emotionally available and responsive” to their children. Save the Children, and other world health organizations recommend breastfeeding for the first two years of a child’s life. Grumet herself stated that she was breastfed until the age of six.  Critics argue that a child is able to eat by that age and the mother is no longer needed as a nutrition source.  Some even went as far as to call Grumet’s actions molestation.

 So my question to you this week is, “What do you think of the Time magazine cover?  Do you think their use of shock advertising was effective? How long do you think it’s appropriate for mothers to breastfeed their children?”  Answers are due no later than Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012.

15 comments:

  1. Their use of shock advertisement was effective i believe. That kid is definitely old enough to eat food on his own. Theres no need for him to be breastfed. Honestly im not sure what to think of this. It's really parental preference i guess in the end, but like it states they only need to be breastfed until the age of 2. After that what's the point?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Their use of shock advertisement was very effective it shocked me when I looked at it. Its not appropriate to show in a magazine even though its natural and a part of life. The kid is old enough to feed himself. I understand that to some mothers they breastfeed for as long as they can because its keeps them close to their children but I think its wrong. I would say until the age of 2 is good enough. If a kid gets breastfed until they are the age of 6 I feel as though that child will have a hard time letting go its just like a pacifier you train your child to let go. I think after they are 2 its wrong to breastfeed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well the front page ad is shocking yes, I don't get it really get it. Even if the fact the kid is old enough to make himself a sandwich or something, and it is the mother's choice to breastfed and when to stop it. I don't know, this is very foreign area to me in general so I don't get the whole ordeal of how to take care of a kid thing so I not really the type of person who can say what is right or not on this subject.

    ReplyDelete
  4. First off, I'd like to say, we all fail for the posting because it is way past March 23rd, I mean this blog wasn't even posted until May 17th. Secondly, I don't see anything wrong with a mother breast-feeding their child in public. That is their right. The use of shock advertisement though is a little offensive. I don't think that child has been breast fed for quite sometime and now for a photo shoot he has his mom shove his face into her tit. Nice Parenting. I was breastfed, so I believe that it is appropriate up until two years of age. The child can eat at the table, go to the toilet, and drink from a glass. I believe two is quite capable of not breastfeeding. I agree with Dustin after two years of age it is wrong. The child might end up with a breast addiction. Serial Rapist, just saying, don't want that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks Andrew! I have corrected the date!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I do think the advertisement is a little shocking so I guess they got their point across. I think that Time Magazine was doing this for a quick sale rather than to make a statement. I think that it is the mother's choice when to stop breastfeeding. If it is not causing harm to the child or anyone else than i think they have the right to do so for however long they want. I have seen mother's breastfeed in public and in plain sight. I know that most would argue that it is natural and i agree that it is, but their should be some discretion about it. Some say that it is a bond the mother and child share and i think that should be done with some privacy from the public.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think that it is ok. Mother's breast feeding is a natural thing and what are they suppose to do when the baby is crying irraticly because they want to be feed. The ad is just showing motherhood in actuality! I think people need to get over themselves because it is not like she had her boob flopped out! I wonder how people will react to European's in Europe if they visited? They are very open and out there. The country we pulled from to live our own lives. I'm still waiting on this to actually happen?....

    ReplyDelete
  8. The cover did its job, it got a lot of attention and got people to pick up the magazine. I think mothers should breastfeed, and i think it is their decision as to when they stop. On that note, i can almost guarantee i will not be breastfeeding my (far off in the future)children for over two years. If the child is able to feed themselves they should be able to be independent. I have read articles about women breastfeeding until the child asks if they can stop, i think that seems extreme. But again, it is the mothers choice and who am i to say anything seeing as i haven't had children and i am not in their shoes.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I was completely shocked at the graphic nature of this photograph. I am not embarrassed by mothers breastfeeding their children in public, it is a natural and beautiful thing. With that being said, I think that if health professionals recommend breastfeeding for the first two years of a child's life, thats where it should be cut off. I wouldn't go as far as calling excessive breastfeeding "molestation", I would just call it excessive. In this specific case, I feel for the child, just think how embarrassing it will be for him, when he becomes older. I think the photograph is entirely graphic and shocking. In my opinion this is the exact reaction the magazine was going for.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have absolutely no problem with women breastfeeding their children, however this Time magazine cover photo was a bit much for me. Bringing a child into this world is supposed to be one of the most beautiful, emotional, most life-changing events that one can go through. Although I can see why this mother could be overly attached, I still believe this is wrong and is pushing the limits on what is normal, and what is abnormal. In my opinion the child should be transitioned off breastfeeding when they reach the age of two, or whichever is recommended by the child's physician. If anything I think this child may begin to feel different from other children that are the same age. I think calling excessive breastfeeding, "molestation" is a little far fetched. I believe the magazine knew that this cover story would create a lot of buzz, one for the graphic image, two for the content associated with it, and three because mothers always stand up for their views on personal choices that are involved with raising children.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think shock value has lost it's luster. The image is a little shocking but the story is not. People are varied and do things I would never do and it doesn't shock me to hear of something like this. I don't agree with breast feeding longer than recommended. Mothers today are too protective and don't allow their kids to "get dirty" like the other kids. This may hurt them in the long run. That mother needs to put her tit away and give the kid a fork.

    ReplyDelete
  12. i could honestly care less, whether or not a mother breast feeds their kid, or for how long. its their choice, and society shouldn't have an impact. however it does. so society needs to wake up, and stop arguing over such petty and miniscule things!!! why not worry about something a little more threatening to society, like global warming, or the massive amount of trash from japan washing up on California's beaches (which was caused by the tsunami that hit japan), or the potential fuel crisis looming the corner!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well, I really don't know about the attachment developed between mother and child through breastfeeding. Six years old sounds a bit old, but who knows. Time magazine and most other print magazines are dying (and they deserve to), so they have to catch people's eye. The only problem with that is an eye catching cover doesn't mean the stories in the magazine are worth reading.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I actually think the cover is hilarious. Specially the little kid's face. But I can see how this is an effective shock to get readers. The thing is this is something that is not unusual, actually it's quite normal in many cultures. In fact studies have shown that a child should be fed their mother's milk until they're around age 10. It's healthier and such. There's a woman who has five kids and she's breast fed all of them until about age 8 or so. So 3 years old is nothing even in public.

    Buckalew

    ReplyDelete
  15. I was embarrassed to see the cover. I think it was effective. For showing the public that this actually still happens. Mothers breastfeeding too long. Children should be breast fed up until the age of eating independently. I personally only breastfed for month on each children. But each parent is different. I think that if a child is brest fed for too long, it can cause social problems for the child.

    ReplyDelete