>Wasn’t it enough when Victoria’s Secret stores, the hotbed of hot lingerie for hot young women, refused to allow a woman to breastfeed (in a discreet and isolated corner, mind you) in their store? Now a magazine for mothers of babies — Babies! — has generated more negative PR for mothers who are able and willing to breastfeed their infants.
One article on the cover is here. This article displays a bias, however. If you can look past the spelling error on the word “gauge” (those always lower a reporter’s credibility in my eyes), read the statistics. Apparently the magazine received 5,000 letters and emails, and 25% had a problem with it, leaving 75% either in support of it or neutral. This does not support the headline of “Breast isn’t Best: readers tell U.S. parenting magazine.” For a more objective report, try this report.
There are a few details to remember before hauling off and bashing mothers or magazine publishers.
- This magazine is not on newsstands; no one will accidentally be “forced” to see the cover. It is distributed free through OB/GYN offices.
- Breastfeeding itself is not sexual, and neither is the photo.
- The goal of this photo was to illustrate an article, not to excite or titillate (sorry, couldn’t resist).
So don’t get your undies in a bundle or your bottle in a battle. Moms have enough on their shoulders (and other parts). Let the babies eat. And let the magazines show it happening.
>And in the CBS article, they put a call “into” the magazine editors. Ouch. Putting a call in to them would be more appropriate, I think.
>Accuracy increases credibility; it’s too bad editors don’t see the mistakes and act on them.
>Great, straightforward advice.
>Sometimes I wish we just did as they do overseas. Walk around with our boob hanging out and babies hanging off of them. Honestly?? it would put some people out of a job. Other than that, the rest of us would get over it.
>For more on this topic from other Women who Blog, check out BlogHer’s collection at http://blogher.org/node/9081.