i think it's ironic that the answer to the question posed on the cover (why don't women nurse longer?) of the august edition of babytalk is being shouted from the mouths of all the "shocked and horrified" -- not to mention crude and callow -- female readers who are in some sort of victorian tizzy at seeing a sliver of a breast in action. less breast can be seen on babytalk than is shown by pam anderson's bikini top on the cover of the magazine across the grocery isle, but i don't hear of many women taking to the streets over that one. how typical. it's likely another case of guilt masking itself as indignation. give me just a small break, people.
i really don't have time to have to get into all of the brouhaha over the current issue, so suffice to say breast is beautiful and all you "horrified" readers with your knickers in a twist over the cover of BABYTALK, seek therapy. now.
Check this out in comparison--breastfeeding in Vogue, and the caption doesn't even mention breastfeeding!
http://s2.supload.com/image.php?get=angelal_vogueus08062.jpg
It's just there :)
I agree completely with your post ("breast is beautiful") although I am still thinking about your comment, "guilt masking itself as indignation." There may be another reason the panty-twisters are upset.
Recently our hometown gazette published a story announcing the meeting of a group of breastfeeding advocates (nothing wrong with that) in a local public park. They were calling all local lactating moms to come to the park to breast feed their babies. I have no problems with moms breastfeeding in the park either. What I question is an advocacy group flagrantly asserting their rights and privileges to the possible detriment of other people’s rights and privileges such as a parent’s right to take their children to the park without exposing them to uncovered breasts. The advocacy group is deliberately creating a situation where rights will conflict. This doesn’t have to be. With a modicum of discretion, tact and courtesy everyone can exercise their rights equally. I think that is the way its supposed to work otherwise everyone selfishly asserts their own rights until the clamor finds itself in the courts.
What does this have to do with the magazine cover? I think it is a beautiful picture. Very tender and well, maternal. But did it need to be on the cover? I guess the answer would be yes if 1) you want to sell lots of magazines and 2) you want to cause lots of controversy. As a Christian I would like to think that my first thought when performing a public act would be, “Who will I offend?� And if it did, then I would have enough maturity and perhaps common sense not to do it. (I admit I’m not always successful at this.) The apostle Paul wrote that while all things might be lawful, they might not all be profitable. Just a thought.
Keep up the good work. I love your blog. Yak.
Yak, you're just too darn charitable for me - not that there's anything wrong with that - but i will tell you that, unfortunately, it takes that kind of advocacy to get things done.
"breast is beautiful"
No argument from this quarter. I might sometimes go into a "tizzy at seeing a sliver of a breast in action", but it's never Victorian.
I don't think that the first thought I have when performing a public act is usually "who might I offend", nor do I think that's a problem (or unChristian of me).
I would consider correcting my child at the store or even feeding my child a snack in the park are similar actions to feeding my baby in the park, and usually my thoughts are more on meeting my child's needs, giving her her due as justice (the virtue) demands. If I give my child a meat sandwich at the park, I don't stop to think about whether any vegans nearby might be offended, even though it's quite possible they might. If I choose to respond to my thrashing melted-down toddler with gentleness instead of some more clearly disciplinary action, it might offend some people. If I were to punish the same child, it might offend others. But what I would look to would be the child's needs (and again, the demands of justice) and not the offense an action might give.
This is not to say that I seek to give offense--not giving it consideration is not the same as to deliberately choose to offend. I agree that discretion is very helpful, and I practice it as much as I can. However, when I need to meet a child's need I meet the need. That's my vocation.