8Likes Time magazine cover -- forget the breast, what about the boy?
This is a discussion on Time magazine cover -- forget the breast, what about the boy? within the General News anti misandry forums, part of the General category; Time magazine cover -- forget the breast, what about the boy? | Fox News Jamie Lynn Grumet, the 26-year-old mother ...
-
Time magazine cover -- forget the breast, what about the boy?
Time magazine cover -- forget the breast, what about the boy? | Fox News

Jamie Lynn Grumet, the 26-year-old mother featured on the cover of Time magazine breastfeeding her 3-year-old son, has done more this week than become the poster woman for “attachment parenting,” the sometimes laudable movement that advises parents to be physically and emotionally available and responsive to their children. She has shown the limits of such a concept, and the ways in which it can be twisted into a bizarre, contemptible caricature of itself.
Grumet is a model, and models have to have at least healthy dose of narcissism (television journalists like me, too, by the way). But I fear Grumet has more than what’s healthy.
Because she thought nothing of becoming far more famous than she ever was or ever would have been by getting naked on the cover of Time using her son as a prop—letting him, in fact, look right into the camera and be completely recognizable while sucking her nipple. He may never be better-known for anything than for being a breastfeeding 3-year-old on the cover of a national magazine.
Ever.
When he enters school later in his young life he may be ridiculed for it. And these realities hint at a woman who could (and I have not evaluated her) have very poor boundaries and be willing or likely not only to nurture a child, but to absorb him, deny him his personhood and render him no more than her appendage.The truth is that what Time magazine may have unwittingly captured and been party to was a grotesque form of psychological abuse—the parading into public of an intimate moment (intimate for mother and child) at the sole direction of that child’s mother, who didn’t stop to think that her child may not be able at the age of three to know what he thinks about the whole thing, much less to stop it, if he wanted to.-
In short, it is not at all clear who is the “parent” in the Time magazine photograph. Is Grumet responding to real and healthy needs emanating from her son’s psyche, or is he responding to her potentially outsized needs to be the center of attention and the object of desire (if only for warmth). Who, we can legitimately ask, is feeding whom?
See, Grumet loves being photographed. And she apparently loves having her son breastfeed. And she loves attention. And she’s happy enough to get naked in front of other people (which there may be nothing wrong with—for her). But that may or may not be the case for her 3-year-old boy, which seems not to have mattered to her—at all. And if his will was bent to hers in order to have him suck his mother’s nipple in front of a photographer and makeup artist and art director and all of America, then it stands to reason that his will may be being bent to hers in all sorts of ways—including protracted breastfeeding.
The truth is that what Time magazine may have unwittingly captured and been party to was a grotesque form of psychological abuse—the parading into public of an intimate moment (intimate for mother and child) at the sole direction of that child’s mother, who didn’t stop to think that her child may not be able at the age of three to know what he thinks about the whole thing, much less to stop it, if he wanted to.
Grumet has stained the attachment parenting movement by documenting how easily it can go wrong, when used as an excuse for poor boundaries and manipulation.
In a way, while looking at the Time magazine cover, we are all Grumet’s son and may know something of his possible plight: finding her a compelling and dramatic presence, seduced by her combination of sex appeal and motherhood—unable, in fact, to detach from her.
Talk about a prescription for psychological disaster.
This is self-centeredness at its worst, sold as good parenting. And this is an act of media violence against a child, committed by adult journalists who also commandeered his will (as did his mother), for sensation and profit. Rarely do we get such evidence of how wrong parenting can go, how poorly journalists can behave and how slow we can be to recognize ugliness when it is disguised as something beautiful.
- 12th-May-2012 # ADS
Advertisement Circuit advertisement- Member Since
- Always
- Location
- Advertising world
- Posts
- Many
-
Re: Time magazine cover -- forget the breast, what about the boy?
It goes to show how far some women will go to seek attention and fame while destroying their children's psychological health in the long term. The boy will now have to deal with the aftermath of his attention seeking mother for the rest of his life. I hate to think what school will be like for this boy when the other students find a picture of him sucking on his mother teat while standing on a chair.
It was never about the boy and "attachment parenting. It is about an attention whore getting limelight and a news magazine creating a controversial cover to induce people to purchase the rag.
In the end it comes down to money once again. Fuck the boy, Momma wants to make some $$ and go on the talk show circuit and publish a book or two.
-
Re: Time magazine cover -- forget the breast, what about the boy?
well what is ugly is that basically this is a sexual abuse...imagine the reverse situation with an adult male and a girl....and they do not realize....from disposable male to disposable boy.
An open question: why did they not chose a girl instead of boy for breastfeeding?.....think ....think...
- 12th-May-2012 #4
Re: Time magazine cover -- forget the breast, what about the boy?
- 12th-May-2012 #5
Re: Time magazine cover -- forget the breast, what about the boy?
Is this the sort of self-absorbed freak show that makes the cover of Time magazine these days?
The 'mother' for want of a better descriptive is clearly an attention whore of the most perverse variety.
Controversy doesn't automatically equate to a great cover!
He's not everyone's cup of tea, but Rush Limbaugh has always vehemently opposed feminism, and I rather like the rejigging of the original picture, in the form of a state dependency theme.
Last edited by Celtic Druid; 12th-May-2012 at 10:55 PM.
The wicked flee when none pursueth. Proverbs 28:1
'Rise like Lions after slumber In unvanquishable number - Shake your chains to earth like dew Which in sleep had fallen on you - Ye are many - they are few.'
Percy Bysshe Shelley
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "
Thomas Jefferson
The internet has been a lifeboat for men's opposition to the floodings of feminism.
Celtic Druid
-
Re: Time magazine cover -- forget the breast, what about the boy?
great job Celtic!
You may also enjoy reading the following threads, why not give them a try?
-
Time magazine sexism, lies and arroganceBy Oneinthree in forum Sexism, Misandry and DiscriminationReplies: 14Last Post: 2nd-July-2011, 04:38 AM -
Time Magazine uses Bad Study for Anti-Father Bias
By Bmiricle in forum AnnouncementsReplies: 7Last Post: 19th-February-2011, 07:26 PM -
TIME Magazine tell Lies about Boys in Education in Cover Story
By Male-Rights-Network in forum Chit chat (MAIN)Replies: 6Last Post: 26th-September-2007, 09:16 PM -
Happy Father's day.... not - from TIME magazine
By selkie in forum Feminist/ MisandryReplies: 6Last Post: 13th-June-2007, 08:10 PM




LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks








Reply With Quote






Bookmarks