It's Time

***I started this post a bit ago, and am just now getting around to finishing it and posting it.***

May 21, 2012

How can I NOT comment on all this hubbub about Time Magazine's "controversial" story last week?!?

For starters, I was a total sucker for all the pre-release media frenzy. I tried two separate times to purchase the magazine before it was even on store shelves. In the meantime I could only wax philosophical on the continuum of reactions to the cover image. I discussed it with friends. I read people's Facebook posts ("Gross! That's so unnatural!") Factually speaking, the cover depicted a beautiful, 20-something, thin, blonde woman wearing jeans and a tank top with her hands on her hips and looking at the camera, with a preschool-aged boy standing on a stool and sucking on her breast with a side glance at the camera. No nipple was harmed (or shown) in the filming of this event - nursing!

I finally got my mitts on the issue last Thursday and was able read the actual article. Funny thing about media and sensationalization - there was very limited reference to the cover model and no additional pictures of breastfeeding. In fact, the bulk of the article was a feature about Dr. William Sears, an elderly pediatrician and "founder" of attachment parenting. In essence, he outlines the tenets of attachment parenting as: breastfeeding, co-sleeping, responding promptly to baby's cries, and baby-carrying. He supports any activities that promote a child's secure attachment to his/her parent (specifically, mother). He seems like a pretty benign guy with a theory based on years of experience as both a doctor and a father. But it's some of his avid, blood-hungry helicopter mama followers who give "attachment parenting," in my opinion, a bad name.

Upon first reading, I thought, "What's the big fucking deal? The cover is provocative, but the article itself and the accompanying photos are very nearly boring." When I re-persued the article, I found it to be biased, anti-attachment parenting. There is a Sears vs. Science box which serves to debunk Dr. Sears' guidelines - as in, co-sleeping can be "deadly;" responding to cries immediately as "alarmist." But at least they promote breastfeeding, both for physical health and bonding. Interestingly, the article purports that 75% of U.S. mothers start out nursing their babies, but less than 50% stick with it by six months.

The reaction of friends, acquaintances and the media surprised me - I cannot believe how many people were disturbed by an image of a woman breastfeeding a toddler, and had the gall to actually comment on it, "gross," "unnatural," "inappropriate," "hot." Granted, most of this criticism came across on the Internet. The thing that gets me the most is not the criticism of the cover itself, but the criticism in general. Parenting takes work, regardless of personal practices - nursing vs. formula, attachment parenting vs. crying it out, organic vs. house brand - and it benefits no one to throw around stones at each of our glass houses.