TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?

TIME cover story: Are you mom enough? I am actually surprised it took TIME magazine this long in doing a cover story on the subject. Plenty of stuff here for subscribers and non-subscribers: [url=http://www.time.com/time/]http://www.time.com/time/[/url]http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,207129#msg-207129Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:00:22 -0400 Phorum 5.2.9a http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,212527#msg-212527 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,212527#msg-212527 navi8orgirl The Living RoomTue, 05 Jun 2012 08:40:43 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,212505#msg-212505 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,212505#msg-212505 trekkie monster The Living RoomTue, 05 Jun 2012 02:40:18 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,212463#msg-212463 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,212463#msg-212463

Quote
trekkie monster
I couldn't resist ...

:hilarious:hilarious:hilarious

that takes ATTACHMENT parenting VERY LITERALLY.]]> Snark Shark The Living RoomMon, 04 Jun 2012 22:55:46 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,212391#msg-212391 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,212391#msg-212391
:jump]]> selidororous The Living RoomMon, 04 Jun 2012 18:14:17 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,212389#msg-212389 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,212389#msg-212389
:thankyou

:jump]]> thom_c The Living RoomMon, 04 Jun 2012 18:09:44 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,212384#msg-212384 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,212384#msg-212384

]]> trekkie monster The Living RoomMon, 04 Jun 2012 17:38:06 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,209498#msg-209498 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,209498#msg-209498 tropical beach bum The Living RoomMon, 21 May 2012 18:49:26 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,209450#msg-209450 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,209450#msg-209450 blueorchid The Living RoomMon, 21 May 2012 14:57:40 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,209445#msg-209445 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,209445#msg-209445

Quote
yurble
...and if you look at modern breast feeding in this light, the woman who "has to" go to the office will never practice extended breast feeding. Only a woman who has plenty of free time will be able to do this. I do wonder if they're trying to show their wealth by advertising their ability to engage in a leisure activity (subconciously, because outwardly they're trying to push perfect motherhood). It just hasn't taken off among the celebrities, who, by and large, are still following the cult of the eternally youthful body (which means no obvious marks of motherhood).

Yes, that is really something to think about. There is also a status of having a large family, IF the kyds can be supported on one income. Otherwise, large families do not have such status. It's weird how people feel they have to do that. I recall little of that kind of thing in the seventies, except a year round tan being associated with people who had the resources to vacation in warmer climates. The eighties changed everything - it just blew up and became all about status and excess and looking rich even if you were not. Credit, baby.

If it seems crass to do it with fancy cars and houses in these economic times, why not use something like EBF in an attempt to display status? I believe it.]]> blondie The Living RoomMon, 21 May 2012 14:37:40 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,209443#msg-209443 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,209443#msg-209443
http://www.boston.com/community/moms/blogs/24_hour_workday/2012/05/motherhood-mom-enough-advice.html

By Kara Baskin

Excerpts (this is roughly half the column):

.........The story also made me think about what I wanted to teach Andrew—I mean really teach him. I’m not talking about the trendy must-dos that crop up each year about feeding and sleeping and discipline, insecurity porn concocted just in time to fill a fresh generation of parents with self-doubt. No, I’m talking about the things that I want to impart in average, totally inextreme moments, when my breasts are covered and my skinny jeans are in the wash.

Here’s my wish list.

I hope I raise a child who says “thank you” to the bus driver when he gets off the bus, “please” to the waiter taking his order at the restaurant, and holds the elevator doors when someone’s rushing to get in.

I hope I raise a child who loses graciously and wins without bragging. I hope he learns that disappointments are fleeting and so are triumphs, and if he comes home at night to people who love him, neither one matter. Nobody is keeping score, except sometimes on Facebook.

I hope I raise a child who is kind to old people.

I hope I raise a child who realizes that life is unfair: Some people are born rich or gorgeous. Some people really are handed things that they don’t deserve. Some people luck into jobs or wealth that they don’t earn. Tough.

I hope I raise a child who gets what he wants just often enough to keep him optimistic but not enough to make him spoiled.

I hope I raise a child who knows that he’s loved and special but that he’s not the center of the universe and never, ever will be.

I hope I raise a child who will stick up for a kid who’s being bullied on the playground. I also hope I raise a child who, if he’s the one being bullied, fights back. Hard. Oh, and if he’s the bully? I hope he realizes that his mother, who once wore brown plastic glasses and read the phonebook on the school bus, will cause him more pain than a bully ever could..............

(snip)

And.....there are more than 80 comments.]]> lenona The Living RoomMon, 21 May 2012 14:23:42 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208586#msg-208586 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208586#msg-208586 catharsist The Living RoomThu, 17 May 2012 08:46:25 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208583#msg-208583 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208583#msg-208583 navi8orgirl The Living RoomThu, 17 May 2012 08:30:26 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208566#msg-208566 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208566#msg-208566
It's not dissimilar to how a pale complexion once indicated a woman who didn't have to work in the sun, but (before cancer scares and tanning creams) later it came to mean a woman without the leisure to spend time lying in the sun.

In all cases, it's about contrasting wealth with the condition that workers will naturally acquire.

...and if you look at modern breast feeding in this light, the woman who "has to" go to the office will never practice extended breast feeding. Only a woman who has plenty of free time will be able to do this. I do wonder if they're trying to show their wealth by advertising their ability to engage in a leisure activity (subconciously, because outwardly they're trying to push perfect motherhood). It just hasn't taken off among the celebrities, who, by and large, are still following the cult of the eternally youthful body (which means no obvious marks of motherhood).]]> yurble The Living RoomThu, 17 May 2012 05:53:05 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208528#msg-208528 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208528#msg-208528

Quote
blueorchid

Quote
SlumSlut

Quote
blueorchid

Quote
SlumSlut
I don't know how women with big ones can stand carrying them around all the time and not being able to take them off ever. To me it would be like carrying a full back-pack wherever you go and never being able to put it down.

Meh, I have bigger boobs and during PMS time (ugh), they do feel heavy and uncomfortable. Then again, so does the rest of me. Otherwise, I've never had small ones, so I don't know what I'm missing, so to speak. I'd never get a reduction because I'd look disproportionate.

i didn't mean it that way. i meant that i can't imagine wishing for BIGGER boobs but i can imagine wishing for smaller ones. i don't think big boobs are ugly or that all women with big ones should have a reduction.

Oh, I never took it as you saying all chesty chicks should have 'em reduced. Just offering up another perspective.

O h good... i was not looking forward to another "people-come-in-all-shapes-and-sizes" lecture, LOL.]]> SlumSlut The Living RoomWed, 16 May 2012 22:24:51 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208512#msg-208512 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208512#msg-208512

Quote
SlumSlut

Quote
blueorchid

Quote
SlumSlut
I don't know how women with big ones can stand carrying them around all the time and not being able to take them off ever. To me it would be like carrying a full back-pack wherever you go and never being able to put it down.

Meh, I have bigger boobs and during PMS time (ugh), they do feel heavy and uncomfortable. Then again, so does the rest of me. Otherwise, I've never had small ones, so I don't know what I'm missing, so to speak. I'd never get a reduction because I'd look disproportionate.

Oh, I never took it as you saying all chesty chicks should have 'em reduced. Just offering up another perspective.]]> blueorchid The Living RoomWed, 16 May 2012 20:48:48 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208506#msg-208506 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208506#msg-208506

Quote
blueorchid

Quote
SlumSlut
I don't know how women with big ones can stand carrying them around all the time and not being able to take them off ever. To me it would be like carrying a full back-pack wherever you go and never being able to put it down.

i didn't mean it that way. i meant that i can't imagine wishing for BIGGER boobs but i can imagine wishing for smaller ones. i don't think big boobs are ugly or that all women with big ones should have a reduction.]]> SlumSlut The Living RoomWed, 16 May 2012 20:07:12 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208453#msg-208453 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208453#msg-208453

Quote
SlumSlut
I don't know how women with big ones can stand carrying them around all the time and not being able to take them off ever. To me it would be like carrying a full back-pack wherever you go and never being able to put it down.

Meh, I have bigger boobs and during PMS time (ugh), they do feel heavy and uncomfortable. Then again, so does the rest of me. Otherwise, I've never had small ones, so I don't know what I'm missing, so to speak. I'd never get a reduction because I'd look disproportionate.]]> blueorchid The Living RoomWed, 16 May 2012 15:30:56 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208450#msg-208450 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208450#msg-208450 blondie The Living RoomWed, 16 May 2012 15:22:51 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208426#msg-208426 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208426#msg-208426 SlumSlut The Living RoomWed, 16 May 2012 12:57:25 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208425#msg-208425 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208425#msg-208425 navi8orgirl The Living RoomWed, 16 May 2012 12:56:56 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208423#msg-208423 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208423#msg-208423

Quote
mumofsixbirds
No matter what moooos try to do to desexualize the breast, it will never happen. Breasts are sexual. Otherwise, how do they explain breast enhancement surgery, like enlargements and breast-lifts? Why would so many women bother with such augmentations, if they were not part of a woman's sexuality?

Why is so much porn devoted to breasts? If they weren't sexual, then all that tittie-porn would disappear. Guys wouldn't be so turned on when they saw a hot chick with big jugs. Women wouldn't enhance their breasts with low-cut tops, cutlets and lifting bras.

These bitches are delusional. They will never desexualize the breast as hard as they try. The reason? Breasts are sexual to many people. They may NOT be sexual to some people, but they are for many....and as loud as they mooo about it, they will never change that aspect of human nature.

Interestingly, though, in the 1999 book "An Underground Education : The Unauthorized and Outrageous Supplement to Everything You Thought You Knew About Art, Sex, Business, Crime, Science, Medicine, and Other Fields of Human Knowledge" by Richard Zacks, it suggests that before the 20th century or so, big breasts were considered more peasant-like than sexy.

Here's the section (not sure which pages these are):

History's Quest: Avoiding Big Breasts

Large breasts--in the genre of Elle MacPherson, Sophia Loren, beloved Marilyn Monroe--have very, very rarely been venerated throughout the history of Western civilization. Americans refuse to believe it, but it's true: This 20th century (mostly American) obsession for over-sized mammaries on a thin frame is a complete aberration. The women who grace the covers of Playboy--with their birdlike shoulders and 3-D cleavage--would have been considered almost freaks in most of Europe and the United States through the mid-1800s. They'd have been viewed as too skinny, with a man's derriere, and their large breasts would have been deemed maternal, not sexual, and more suited for peasant wet nurses.

Martial, the Roman poet, wrote of the perfect breast as not overflowing one hand. And the Romans--so efficient in public works--left nothing to chance. The women of ancient Rome wore a "fascia," a light but firm undergarment to support and supress the bosom. "This device opposed the growth of the breasts," wrote Augustin Cabanes, a l9th-century medical historian, "just as tight shoes of the Chinese women reduced the size of their feet."

The ancient Greeks--during the so-called Golden Age of Aristotle and Aeschylus--had a temple dedicated to Aphrodite Kallipygeia, Aphrodite of the Beautiful Derriere. One Greek dramatist penning cosmetic advice to a prostitute recommends suppressing her large breasts while supplementing her hips via padding. "Like ourselves, the Greeks detested bulky breasts," stated another French medical historian in 1895, "the signs of beauty were elevation, smallness and regularity of contour."

Renaissance corsets so brutally squashed breasts that quite a few medical texts for women from that period discussed how to cure nipples inverted by a lifetime of corset-wearing.

Unlike today's Wonderbra, the prevailing challenge was always to minimize, not maximize, to understate, not poke somebody's eye out. "The formulas for reducing and firming up the breasts are countless," notes Dr. Cabanes elsewhere and cites by example a French handbook from the Renaissance. The Bastiment des receptes advises: "To make small breasts remain in that state and to reduce the size of large ones, take the main viscera (heart, liver, spleen, lungs) of a hare, mince them and mix with an equal part of ordinary honey. Apply this as a poultice to the breasts and surrounding areas and renew the application when dry."

Even the most cursory glance at sculpture through the ages reveals very few figures resembling Claudia Schiffer and many more resembling Venus de Milo, who'd be considered a bit zaftig today. Women who would have been a goddess for Sophocles are Helen Gurley Brown's mouseburgers.

(end)

Zacks also mentions Scarlett O'Hara's fierce determination to keep her waist under 20 inches(!) her entire life, despite having had three babies, and he explains why this was hardly an unusual attitude for the time.]]> lenona The Living RoomWed, 16 May 2012 12:40:28 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208411#msg-208411 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208411#msg-208411 blondie The Living RoomWed, 16 May 2012 11:29:43 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208385#msg-208385 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208385#msg-208385

Quote
navi8orgirl

Face it, no one goes to ogle knees and elbows.

not entirely true... I have a leg fetsh! :D:P]]> Snark Shark The Living RoomWed, 16 May 2012 09:11:08 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208376#msg-208376 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208376#msg-208376

Quote
mumofsixbirds
What these mooos don't want to recognize is that a breast's ability to produce milk is somewhat limited...after a certain time, the ducts dry up. Eventually, nothing comes out at all.

Breasts are sexual for a much longer time than they are useful as a feeding device for their brats.
I know my breasts have been sexual most of my life, which would be around 25 years - much longer than most teets can produce milk for their brats.

No matter what moooos try to do to desexualize the breast, it will never happen. Breasts are sexual. Otherwise, how do they explain breast enhancement surgery, like enlargements and breast-lifts? Why would so many women bother with such augmentations, if they were not part of a woman's sexuality?

Why is so much porn devoted to breasts? If they weren't sexual, then all that tittie-porn would disappear. Guys wouldn't be so turned on when they saw a hot chick with big jugs. Women wouldn't enhance their breasts with low-cut tops, cutlets and lifting bras.

These bitches are delusional. They will never desexualize the breast as hard as they try. The reason? Breasts are sexual to many people. They may NOT be sexual to some people, but they are for many....and as loud as they mooo about it, they will never change that aspect of human nature.

No more titty bars, either. Face it, no one goes to ogle knees and elbows.

They are sexual, and that is likely the real reason for EBF.]]> navi8orgirl The Living RoomWed, 16 May 2012 08:20:52 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208352#msg-208352 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208352#msg-208352

Quote
Snark Shark

Quote
navi8orgirl
OK said research is right up there with finding out AIDS is spread by oral sex by testing simians. Who had to blow the monkeys to find this out?

Probably Paris hilton.

:pimp]]> fade_to_pale The Living RoomWed, 16 May 2012 03:51:23 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208344#msg-208344 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208344#msg-208344
No, either you're a mom, or you're not." Breeder :fail]]> You don't say The Living RoomWed, 16 May 2012 03:37:24 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208335#msg-208335 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208335#msg-208335this? They got the facial expressions perfectly. :hilarious]]> blueorchid The Living RoomWed, 16 May 2012 02:14:40 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208279#msg-208279 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208279#msg-208279
So, he went on to say, until mothers start demanding that kids work for them and not the other way around, women will never shake their image as a sex that LIKES being enslaved by one age group or another. "What's that I hear? Screaming and gnashing of teeth? Well ladies, all ya gotta do is prove me wrong."

And this level of "attachment parenting" does seem like slavery.

Rosemond's latest column is about the TIME issue:

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/05/15/3611077/john-rosemond-living-with-children.html

The cover story in last week's (May 21, 2012) Time Magazine is all about "why attachment parenting drives some mothers to extremes - and how Dr. Bill Sears became their guru." That is the article's subtitle. All I can say, somewhat hopefully, is "at last."

Because my next book, due out in the fall, contains a chapter on attachment parenting's destructive propaganda, I have done considerable research of late on the subject. For those of you who are not familiar with this latest parenting trend, attachment parenting is all about parents and children sleeping together, mothers "wearing" their infants (constantly carrying them around in slings), breastfeeding these same children until they are 2 or 3, and generally centering their lives on their kids in perpetuity.

Supposedly, all this fuss over children is essential to making sure mother and child properly "bond." According to the movement's high priest, California pediatrician Bill Sears, proper bonding is supposed to enhance the mother-child relationship, nurture better emotional health, and even make the child smarter and less likely to lie.

That's right! On his website, in an essay titled "11 Ways to Raise a Truthful Child," Sears writes "Connected children do not become habitual liars. They trust their caregivers and have such a good self-image they don't need to lie." In the same article, he promises parents who choose to adopt his method that they will develop the wisdom they need to make proper decisions for their children and that their children will "turn out better" than children raised otherwise.

By "turn out better" Sears means a child who is more intelligent, calm, secure, socially confident, empathic, and independent than a child raised according to prevailing Western norms. Mind you, he doesn't support this with any evidence obtained via the scientific method (an experiment involving both a control group and an experimental group) because he can't. There is no such evidence. To be blunt, Sears is making all this up. He's, well, let's just say he and his mother must not have properly bonded.

In fact, no unbiased research has ever affirmed any emotional or behavioral advantage to parent-child co-sleeping, extended breastfeeding, or "baby wearing." To cite but one example, James J. McKenna, director of the Mother-Baby Sleep Laboratory at the University of Notre Dame, says that he has yet to find any benefit to parents and children sleeping together. McKenna is widely regarded as the world's foremost authority on infant sleep issues.

The harm of attachment parenting is testified to by numerous ex-AP parents who have shared with me horror stories about the damage done to their marriages by co-sleeping and the problems they've had trying to get over-dependent children as old as eight out of their beds. In an Amazon consumer review of Sears's "The Attachment Parenting Book," a mother who is trying to recover from his advice with two small children says, "This book ought to come with a warning!"

When all is said and done, the only person who seems to have benefitted from attachment parenting is Dr. Bill Sears.

(end)]]> lenona The Living RoomTue, 15 May 2012 18:28:14 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208136#msg-208136 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208136#msg-208136

Quote
navi8orgirl
OK said research is right up there with finding out AIDS is spread by oral sex by testing simians. Who had to blow the monkeys to find this out?

Probably Paris hilton.]]> Snark Shark The Living RoomTue, 15 May 2012 08:57:56 -0400 http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208059#msg-208059 Re: TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,207129,208059#msg-208059
Breasts are sexual for a much longer time than they are useful as a feeding device for their brats.
I know my breasts have been sexual most of my life, which would be around 25 years - much longer than most teets can produce milk for their brats.

No matter what moooos try to do to desexualize the breast, it will never happen. Breasts are sexual. Otherwise, how do they explain breast enhancement surgery, like enlargements and breast-lifts? Why would so many women bother with such augmentations, if they were not part of a woman's sexuality?

Why is so much porn devoted to breasts? If they weren't sexual, then all that tittie-porn would disappear. Guys wouldn't be so turned on when they saw a hot chick with big jugs. Women wouldn't enhance their breasts with low-cut tops, cutlets and lifting bras.

These bitches are delusional. They will never desexualize the breast as hard as they try. The reason? Breasts are sexual to many people. They may NOT be sexual to some people, but they are for many....and as loud as they mooo about it, they will never change that aspect of human nature.]]> mumofsixbirds The Living RoomMon, 14 May 2012 21:49:42 -0400