Pun intended. Heh.
So I know I'm woefully late to this party, but I've been all indecisive and angsty about whether or not I wanted to share my thoughts on the Time kerfuffle. It's funny -- I seem to have no problem sharing intimate details of life with an anxiety disorder, but I'm generally too chicken to write anything that might cause people to (gasp!) disagree with me. Pathetic much?
I should start with some full-disclosure: I fully embrace the ideals of attachment parenting, as well as many of the hippy-dippy lifestyle choices that seem to frequently accompany it. My kids were breastfed on-demand, worn in slings, and slept in our bed. Crying babies were held and comforted. Discipline has always been gentle and non-coercive. Diapers were cloth, baby food was homemade and organic --- blah, blah, blah. Clearly I have no problem with extending breastfeeding (Zoe nursed until a few weeks before her 3rd birthday) or any other aspect of attachment parenting.
It is precisely because I value the ideals of attachment parenting that I take such issue with the Time magazine piece. The cover photo is exploitation at its worst, and everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves. The editors were going for shock value at the expense of integrity -- and, what's worse, they used a non-consenting child as their weapon. That photo was not taken to portray the (lovely) reality of breastfeeding an older toddler, that photo was taken to elicit divisive reactions from a culture that already views extending nursing with shock and suspicion. The worst part of that photo? The fact that a MOTHER offered up her child for it. One of the core values of attachment parenting is an authentic and driving respect for ones' children -- and yet Joanne Beauregard allowed an extremely intimate photograph of her young child to be used to sell magazines. This is not just a cute little toddler-in-a-bathtub shot --- the breastfeeding relationship, especially for older children, is about a fundamental trust and emotional intimacy. Recording and broadcasting that intimacy for worldwide consumption, without the awareness (let alone consent) of that child is disrespectful and disturbing.
And all that before I read a single word.....
"Are You Mom Enough?"
Are you kidding me? Really?!?
Perhaps they were worried they wouldn't sell enough magazines by simply exploiting intimacy, so they decided to throw in a heaping dose of "Let's use media to make women feel inadequate!!". You know, just in case the whole unattainable standard of beauty thing isn't enough....
Or maybe they were intentionally trying to throw some gas on the Mommy Wars. Because everyone knows that when mothers fight amongst ourselves we lose sight of the issues that REALLY matter. Maybe they figure if they can keep us busy fighting about what we should do with our breasts we'll forget that the United States is one of the few industrialized nations that fails to offer a maternity leave benefit. Or that we have one of the worst maternal mortality rates of all first-world nations (seriously -- it's safer to give birth in Kuwait or Croatia or Grenada). Or that women still only earn 77-cents for every dollar earned by men. It sort of seems like we're fighting the wrong battle, doesn't it?
The article itself was pretty unsubstantial and pointless -- but I suppose yellow journalism is more about headlines than the substance. Not surprisingly, it portrayed attachment parenting as an extreme and potentially dangerous philosophy. The second paragraph described how Joanne Beauregard continued to nurse her son during her second pregnancy even though it "nearly sent her into preterm labor" -- suggesting a near-malicious negligence on her part and tapping her adherence to attachment parenting as her motivation. I'm sure it was Time's intention to equate attachment parenting to such a dangerous idea --- scandal sells. But I have know scores of women who have nursed while pregnant (myself included) and I can tell you this: If indeed Beauregard put her pregnancy at risk by continuing to nurse, that decision was NOT driven by anything resembling attachment parenting. It sure does make a good hook though, right?
Time got in another good sucker punch when it cited Bill Sears' (AP "guru") rationale for rejecting the "crying it out" model. According to Time, attachment parenting adherents believe Sears' claim that "crying it out" causes brain damage and developmental delays. Sort of makes Sears sound like a bit of an alarmist nut-job, which I'm sure was their intention. Let me clear that up: While I'm sure there is some quote out there where Sears links brain damage and excessive crying, that is not why he (or anyone else) responds to crying babies. We respond to our children's cries because it's deeply instinctual to do so. We respond to our children's cries because we want them to know they can trust us. We respond to our children's cries for the same reason we'd respond to anyone's cries -- it's an act of compassion and grace. It's NOT because we're worried about brain damage. But, of course, brain damage sells magazines --- compassion and grace don't.
I'm not gonna lie. I believe in attachment parenting. I strive to live by the ideals I learned from Bill Sears and Jean Liedloff and Elizabeth Pantley and Tine Thevenin and Joseph Chilton Pearce and Alfie Kohn. Maybe someday I'll work up the courage to blog about why I love AP and what it's done for my family -- but for now, I'll say this: All you moms out there --- trust yourselves. You don't need Time magazine to tell you if you're enough. You already know.
I guess I'm back to my original point: Shame on you Time magazine. Shame on you for being inflammatory and divisive. Shame on you for your yellow journalism. Shame on you for pitting women and mothers against each other.
You really do suck.
