What Do You Think of TIME‘s Breastfeeding Cover?

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

At the same time, the cover makes me wonder about the intentions behind designing the cover. I don't know, but something about the way the bodies are posed seems like the cover is purposefully trying to sexually objectify/shame/pervert breastfeeding. Maybe if I read the article more would be clarified, but it makes me wonder if that is typically how the mother in the article breastfeeds her child, if this is a natural pose, or if it was staged that way for a purpose. And if their bodies were posed/staged, then that does disturb me. Not because of the act of breastfeeding itself, but because it then becomes another example of sexualising women's bodies in the media for the purpose of attracting the hetero cismale gaze. So instead of talking women's relationships with their children and the social stigmas against breastfeeding, we're back to a conversation with the hetero male spectre in the background...

The cover was staged for effect. The photographer, Martin Schoeller, explains his vision as:

When you think of breast-feeding, you think of mothers holding their children, which was impossible with some of these older kids,” Schoeller says. “I liked the idea of having the kids standing up to underline the point that this was an uncommon situation.”

Capturing various attached parents — and their reasons for attachment parenting — was Schoeller’s biggest goal for the sitting. “It was important to show that there’s no stereotypical look for a mom who practices this kind of parenting,” Schoeller says.

http://lightbox.time.com/2012/05/10/parenting/#1

Originally Posted by Glenn

As a regular member of a few hetero-male sites, where feminism is usually frowned upon, and because the child is a boy, I think many hetero-men may view this cover picture as symbolic of the sissification of American men by modern women(for which there seems to be a growing belief and angst).

Cant say that I follow this line of reasoning r.e. the "sissification of American men" in regards to the photo. I'm thinking men who have a "sissified" problem are more likely to be those who were taught to believe women are meant to be barefoot, pregnant, silent, pieces of property and indentured servants who are supposed to worship the ground they walk on. Thats a patriarchy and privilege issue for another thread.

I went looking for the magazine which was supposed to hit the newsstands today. It isnt here yet.