Sigh. It's here. Again.
Most of you probably didn't say those words to yourself when you saw the newest Time magazine cover (here it is if somehow you missed it: http://lightbox.time.com/2012/05/10/parenting/#1), but I did. Being a mom, especially one who has been part of a moms board, the whole breastfeeding debate is not a new one to me. And being a mom, I would be remiss if I didn't address this magazine cover controversy. :)
There are so many mommy debates to engage in, and when you're part of a moms board, "hiding" behind a computer as they say, those debates are often sparked. Sometimes by accident, sometimes by way of someone saying mischievously, "So, what can we discuss today?" Working moms vs. stay-at-home moms, cloth diapering vs. disposables, co-sleeping or crib sleeping - and the big mama bear of them all, breastfeeding vs. formula feeding. A greater categorization of all of these smaller arguments could be condensed into attachment parenting vs.... well, "regular" parenting. Many women on the moms board I was on, and many others I'm sure, are proud to label themselves as "AP." I suppose this is because the child is, in theory, attached to you... your breast, your hip, your whole body. Regular moms don't have a label.
The "everybody else" group isn't as easy to categorize. In my case, I seemed to straddle both groups. It seemed right on par with my Libra personality that I saw both sides because, to an extent, I experienced both sides. I co-slept with my kids... when they were babies, sometimes, out of necessity, when it was the only way I could get some sleep and also because it made it easier to breastfeed. I made baby food... sometimes. I cloth diapered... for about 2 minutes, in the beginning, with my first, and then gave up and guiltily used disposables. I used a baby sling with my daughter and "wore" her in the beginning (I hate that stupid term... she's not a coat), at least until she got too heavy. (Weighing in at 10 pounds at birth, my son was ALWAYS too heavy for that.)
And I nursed. My son for 9 months, my daughter for 14. Alexander was a huge eater from the beginning, and when he was done with me, he would cry for more, and so we supplemented with formula. After Colette was born, she was losing weight rapidly in the beginning, and I was instructed to supplement to get her weight up. Thankfully this lasted only a few weeks, and I was able to breastfeed exclusively from then on until it was time to introduce regular milk. It was a fantastic experience for me and, fortunately, I had no problems at all with breastfeeding... no pain - not even in the beginning, no bleeding, not one instance of thrush or mastitis. I lucked out. It was always my intention to breastfeed, but for the sake of my sanity, I went into it with low expectations. I know that despite their hardest efforts, some women suffer numerous problems and their best-laid plans fall through. I remember my mother-in-law asking me if I planned to nurse, and I answered that I hoped to. I didn't want to make any assumptions... just in case. Maybe that was part of my good fortune. :)
So when I saw the Time magazine cover, I didn't quite know what to make of it. Why did they publish that photo? Are subscriptions down? Wanted to stir things up a bit? They have to know that such a cover and subject matter is going to accomplish only one of three things: 1) kick off World War III between moms, 2) cause said moms hate Time magazine or 3) make moms who apparently are not "mom enough" feel bad about themselves or guilty about what they, for whatever reason, did not accomplish when it came to breastfeeding or any other parenting choices. I think that #3 is the most likely.
Seriously, Time. Has this subject not been beaten to death by now? Was it a slow news week? Why did the magazine feel the need to pit moms against each other, against Time, against themselves? In other words, what good does this article accomplish?! (Aside from potentially making moms who have chosen extended breastfeeding feel smug and secure in their decision.) Both new and seasoned moms have enough to deal contend with without something like this smacking them in the face. There are enough aspects of parenthood that are going to result in stress, sleepless nights, second-guessing, guilt, etc. How about supporting us instead of making us angry? There's enough competition going on. All you need to do is make a choice and you're competing with someone else who has made the opposite choice. Not everyone is going to view this as a competition, but even if you don't, you can't help but feel your way is the "right" way... or else, you know, you wouldn't be doing it. This goes all the way from how you feed your child to how you sleep to what kind of stroller you buy. If you let it, it becomes a huge competition that essentially has no end.
And to answer your question, Time... well, I really can't. What does that even mean? Am I mom enough to breastfeed my kid while he's playing video games? COULD I have? Well, sure, I could have. Did I WANT to? No sir. I didn't want to, and that's why I didn't. And don't. Nursing your child until he or she is in elementary school doesn't make you the grand champion of motherhood, and I don't understand why it's made out to be that way. I'm a big supporter (hee hee) of breastfeeding, but this is just unnecessary. Plus, I just don't like the smug, superior look on her face, dammit.
The magazine cover set me off in and of itself, but to be fair, I thought I should read the article inside. It wasn't easy to pin down (checked out of the library, no copies at the extensive magazine section at Target, and I wasn't about to subscribe to time.com just to read it), but I was finally able to access it via my local library's web site. Not as inflammatory as one might expect... not inflammatory at all, in fact. Most of it focused on Dr. Bill Sears, famous baby doctor who embraces much of the AP style, and his family life. It seems almost a shame that such a non-accusatory, almost gentle article should have such an in-your-face cover to represent it. It certainly got a lot of people to read the article, that's for sure, and I guess at the end of the day that's all that really matters to the editors. But in my opinion it's misleading and instantly puts women on the offensive before they even read one word.
For "established" mothers (ok, let's say for argument sake those who have been parenting for five years or more. Not that that's really ESTABLISHED, but just to say that they're not brand-new moms with newborn babies), I think that Time's cover doesn't incite so much of a "mommy war." At this point, we've taken the road that we have, accepted it and are doing the best we can. The exception, of course, is with those who are harboring some kind of regret over whether or not they should have breastfed... or tried a home birth... or established a "family bed" from the very beginning instead of letting their baby cry for a while in the crib. Most of us are just left feeling pissed-off at Time magazine for such a stupid cover.
The so-called mommy wars, I fear, will be ignited in the new moms and moms-to-be who may not know yet which road they're going to take. Those who want to go one way, no matter what it is, but fear judgment from others. Like I said before... there's enough competition without this kind of fuel thrown on the fire. Basically, it all comes back to... whatever works for you. What works for one doesn't work for all, and trying to force women into one particular kind of parenting is only going to backfire and cause hurt feelings. Some of the elements of the article that I found to be gentle and non-accusatory are going to completely set off the next person, so. Big shocker there. We're all not exactly alike.
Am I mom enough? I'm mom enough not to be bullied by an asinine magazine cover, a gentle and well-meaning doctor, or any other moms whose parenting viewpoints differ from mine. I'm mom to my own kids, no one else's, and the choices I've made seem to have worked out pretty well for them so far and I think they'd agree. And speaking of bullies, I'm sure my kids also appreciate my not throwing them to the wolves at school after having them pose for the cover of Time magazine like that with their mom. That poor, poor kid.
