There has recently been a huge
controversy over Time Magazine’s
recent cover displaying a young mother with her almost four year old son
standing on a stool, breast feeding. The article is about attachment parenting.
I
was initially very confused about this cover, and had no idea what attachment
parenting was. After reading a few articles and hearing about the controversy,
I recognized that the only concept I had of attachment parenting was from a
film released a few years ago called Away
We Go where the main character’s cousin has become an “attached” parent, condemning
strollers, breast feeding their child until beyond a “normal” age, and
co-habitual sleeping habits between the parents and their children.
Whether
or not I agree with the parenting practices exhibited by “attachment”
parenting, I was intrigued by the controversy involving this cover, and indeed
my own aversion to the photo.
It
seems to be no stretch to assume that people are offended by not only the large
child still breast feeding, but by the blatant presence of a breast on the
cover of a magazine as well. Women’s bodies are often portrayed as highly
sexualized, and therefore this shot should not seem anywhere out of the
ordinary.
My
theory is that its upsetting factor is more in the fact that this woman is not
being photographed as a “sexual” object. She’s being photographed as a mother,
and that disturbs people because the female body is generally seen in media either as a
sexual object, or not to be seen at all. I’d be curious to discuss the way
women’s bodies are used to portray different “womanly” values, virtues, and
ideologies. This woman’s body is being used, after all, to delve into the
attachment parenting issue, which has many other ways to be represented. This
is a controversial cover for many reasons, all of which I can assure you the Time editors were aware of. They seem to
also be commenting or questioning what it is that offends us so about the
female body being exposed in a more natural manner than that of a highly
subjectified photograph. Here is the Photo
I'm glad you wrote about this! I had been thinking about writing a blog because I keep hearing about the story over and over again! It has been such a controversy and it definitely relates to many things we've discussed in class.
ReplyDeleteLike you mention, the controversy itself had little to do with the accompanying article, but much to do with the "graphic" or "shocking" nature of the cover photograph... which in itself says a lot about the power of photography and perhaps its ability to evoke an immediacy in reactions to issues in the digital age. And of course, the internet has helped spread the prevalence of both the picture and its reactions on a national (if not global) scale.
I'm not going to lie though, I was pretty shocked by the cover at first. But, I realized that my uncomfortableness with the photo likely stemmed from my social conditioning to view women in a certain way. I think in America "women as mothers" is a very taboo, behind-closed-doors kind of issue (i.e. women having to breastfeed under modesty blankets in public, images of the pregnant belly on magazines being a source of controversy, etc). I know that such is not the case in many other countries, so it's an interesting point to consider in terms of American culture. I do think a lot of it has to do with the "de-sexualizing" of the female body, like you suggest.
However, I do think there is an obvious "out of the box" issue (in American culture) occurring in the picture, that being the breastfeeding of a child past his infancy. And I think gender plays a major role in this, too, as the child is an older boy. Although, I'm not sure that inserting a girl into this picture would have lessened the reactions very much.
If TIME was going for shock value, it definitely achieved its goal. However, what I find most interesting is how many parents who practice attachment parenting/extended breastfeeding themselves are upset over the cover and claim it misrepresents the practice and has turned something that is supposed to be comforting and affectionate into something cold and extreme. While the cover was definitely surprising, TIME could have achieved even greater shock value had it shown the 26-year-old mother, Jamie Lynn Grumet, breastfeeding her 5-year-old adopted son, which she also does on a regular basis.
ReplyDeleteWhile I have no problem with breastfeeding and try not to judge women who do it longer than I personally would feel comfortable with, there are some recent parenting controversies that even I have a tough time accepting. For example, Alicia Silverstone pre-chewing her son's food and feeding it to him like a mother bird. (see story here http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/alicia-silverstone-baby-feeding-mouth-mouth-video-spurs-16027885) Thoughts?
I would have to agree with Stephanie that the “shock value” goal of TIME magazine was definitely achieved & met. I can’t help but assume that this was perhaps one of the primary objectives of the TIME’s editors due to the various controversial issues that this cover brings about. I also agree that those parents who practice such child-rearing methods should not be SO astonished by this photo, since it is nearly an exact replica of many parenting styles & realities. However it is interesting that TIME made the decision to move forward with such a cover regardless of the fact that they knew they would be met with various opinions, outrages and opposition given the reputation of the magazine. Indeed, women’s bodies are often portrayed as highly sexualized, and therefore this photo is not necessarily anywhere “out of the ordinary” but I think the fact that they chose to include the 5-year old boy with his mouth on his mother’s breast is a brave & bold move.
ReplyDeleteIn offering an additional perspective/ theory, I wonder if the initial shock value comes from the fact the 26-year old mother (Jamie Lynn Grumet) is not just portrayed mother icon but also happens to fit the “sexy mom” or “MILF” stereotype… Being blonde, skinny, toned, young, etc; reinforces the far-fetched image America has created for woman. In other words, this woman or “mother” falls into the idealized image we have of woman who are pressured to not only be SUPERMOM but to also be beautiful for their husbands as well. Jamie Grumet seems to “have it all” in this picture, which I believe to be one of the main reasons people are unsatisfied with this cover.