A little motherhood controversy for Mother’s Day.
It would of course be startling enough to hear that a woman is nursing an almost 4-year-old. What’s shocking is the photograph, in which the kid looks big enough (compared to apparently petite mom) to be about 7.
But the worst thing, to me, are his eyes looking at the camera — looking out at America, in the photo that will dog him the rest of his life.
Am I saying that in high school, bullies will be pinning him down and cutting his hair against his will? I don’t know about that. I’m sort of worried about him surviving 1st grade.
A really cruel thing has been done to this boy, and at this point he has no idea. I feel bad for him.
Related Posts
I was kinda hoping that that wasn’t an actual picture of the child, but a sort of ‘Norman Rockwell’ representation.
Brad, please explain the editorial logic that leads to this cover? What are the editors thinking, how to increase rack sales? Especially since the story has nothing to do with the cover.
How is this not child porn?
I had similar thoughts as well, Brad. Very sad in several ways….
Horrendous photo. There really isn’t any controversy about three-year-olds nursing, outside of our weird formula-obsessed culture. But when you stage the photo to look like porn? Yeah. Keep in mind many boys don’t even potty train until 3 or 4. If you staged a diaper-changing photo that way, it would be illegal. It’s the photo.
Some women are just cursed with being crazy. Case in point.
When it’s his turn to go to the cafeteria to get the milk for their morning milk break, will he bring back the cook lady?
Times have changed in most of the rest of the country, and a lot of kids are breast fed into their threes. A really cruel thing–being fed by his mother? [scratches head]…
Bullying, on the other hand, is not tolerated much at all in most schools any more. It’s not 1962 or whenever you were in first grade or when the Mittster was assaulting classmates, thank goodness!
“But the worst thing, to me, are his eyes looking at the camera — looking out at America, in the photo that will dog him the rest of his life.”
Its explotation almost. Its shocking because its so outside the norm.
It almost has a fetishy sex appeal as well since the mom is so attractive.
I don’t think this cover will haunt his life as much as his Mom parading him around to any media outlet that will support her agenda.
“A really cruel thing has been done to this boy, and at this point he has no idea. I feel bad for him.”
Totally agree with you, Brad. His future will be diminished for the sake of (please choose the best answer):
1. advancing education in human biology
2. advancing abstract feminism (favoritism for a majority class)
3. advancing his alleged birth mother’s career prospects
4. perpetuating rank capitalism (publishing at its desperate worst)
5. all of the above
6. insufficient facts (please specify)
As Jennifer says, it’s not a scandal that a 3-year-old is being nursed (perhaps I overstated it with “startling” — but that’s a big kid for that age). It’s that it’s being exploited — this child is being exploited.
As far as bullying not being tolerated… it never was. But in the Lord of the Flies world of boys, what is officially tolerated carries minimal weight.
Given that little thugs will always look for someone to pick on, this mother has put a permanent target on her son’s back.
It’s no less startling than your neonatal nurse telling you that breastfeeding for at least the first six months, and possibly well over a year, will be best for your newborn at the same time she is putting together a take-home package of baby formula samples…
One would hope she weans him before he starts kindergarten…
Pre-school Mitt Romney is going to hold that kid down and cut off his milk mustache.
Bullying was totally tolerated at my school. The attitude was that it would toughen kids up and they’d learn to sort things out for themselves. Yeah. By retreating into their shells, getting stomach aches, headaches, etc.
Sorry to hear that. Fortunately, most of us did not attend Adolph Hitler High School…
Bullying was not tolerated at my school either, but when we all were stranded on an island, we quickly threw back the bonds of society and ended up killing a fat asthmatic boy.
On the topic of the cover picture, it’s over the top and sensationalistic to the extent that it’s on the level of a tabloid. A picture of just the woman (clothed) would be fine. Why does Time feel the need to put light porn (disturbing porn) on the cover? The readership levels must be very low.
Print media is dying, and this is an example of Time’s last gasps to get attention and stay in the conversation.
Interesting thing about that… We talk a lot today about what is tolerated and what is not, but when I was a kid, it really didn’t matter what the adults did and didn’t tolerate. Our lives went on independent of what adults thought.
That could be the source of Kathryn saying bullying was tolerated. In my own childhood, most social interaction between kids, for good or for ill, occurred outside the view or knowledge of adults. They had no idea what was happening.
I had quite a few fights as a kid, and not one of them was ever interrupted by an adult. (Some started by others; sometimes I struck the first blow — but never without provocation.)
In other words, I’m saying that we were sort of always on that island, and it was always Lord of the Flies on a certain level.
I sense that there’s less of that distance today. Or, at least, the expectation is that kids are more supervised. Could be that there’s just as much of a law of the jungle going on at kid level as there ever was; I don’t know…
The thing about that photograph is that the humanity of the child is totally denied. He’s a prop, a possession. He’s an opportunity for his mother to display her narcissism to the world: “Look at me! I’m part of a trend! (And I’m also a babe!)”
That’s what makes his eyes, looking into the camera, so disturbing. He’s letting us know, like those POWs blinking in Morse Code, that he is, too, a person. Only he’s doing it unwittingly, as he’s not yet aware of what’s being done to him…
with everyone FB posting everything about what they or their kid eats, pee’s, poop’s etc., this kid is just another parental pawn in the “look at me!” world.
I’d be ok with the cover if it just showed a topless woman talking about the virtues of natural breast feeding. I’ve alway believed that people are way too uptight about nudity. But inclusion of the kid makes this wrong. Time should not have printed this.
Time accomplished their mission here, they’ve made themselves relevant and gotten a lot of publicity this week. Kudos to them for that.
I agree with bud though. Time should have left the boy out of the picture and just had a topless lady on the cover. 😉
Time magazine is just another one of those old fashioned paper media outlets that’s resorting to shock value to try and sell magazines. If Time and Newsweek stopped their paper version would anyone under the age of 85 really care?
The mother even said that that was not how they normally breastfeed. I’ve read that the photographer said he put the boy on the chair to make him look bigger. I don’t think the photo helps their cause – too extreme and exploitative. Not nurturing at all.
@Nick Nielsen – some women do not produce enough milk and therefore need formula to supplement the baby’s diet. And others, by choice or necessity, aren’t going to nurse at all. So it’s appropriate for the nurse to discuss all options.
That cover totally sucks.