‘Time had the opportunity to explore motherhood and the individuality of each parent-child bond, to validate the mundane and empower women who make countercultural parenting choices. Instead, the editors chose to cash in on cookie-cutter sexploitation and mum-vs-mum sensationalism’

Nicole Jameson

Time magazine threw fuel on the fires of the Mummy Wars last week, with its controversial feature story on Attachment Parenting. Or – and probably more to the point – with its controversial cover picture, featuring 26-year-old Jamie Lynn Grumet posing somewhat cooly while her almost four-year-old son stood on a child-sized chair and fed from her exposed breast.

The magazine cover, of course, went viral, sparking conversation and debate all the way from the blogosphere to the mainstream print media. Many were wondering about attachment parenting – and if breastfeeding chair-standing man-children was really part of the deal and if it’s what you have do to do be ‘Mom Enough’?

While standing up isn’t my preferred method of feeding my babies, I am committed to attachment parenting including extended breastfeeding. But I’m afraid the authentic message of this style of baby raising is being drowned out by TIME’s controversial cover.

According to Dr William Sears, pediatrician, father of 8 and founder of the modern Attachment Parenting movement,

“Attachment parenting is an approach to raising children rather than a strict set of rules. Certain practices are common to AP parents; they tend to breastfeed, hold their babies in their arms a lot, and practice positive discipline, but these are just tools for attachment, not criteria for being certified as an attached parent. So forget the controversies about breast vs bottle, crying it out or not, and which methods of discipline are acceptable, and go back to the basics. Above all, attachment parenting means opening your mind and heart to the individual needs of your baby and letting your knowledge of your child be your guide on making on –the-spot decisions about what works best for both of you. In a nutshell, AP is learning to read the cues of your baby and responding appropriately to those cues.” (The Attachment Parenting Book)

Breastfeeding children past infancy is all about bonding. Breastfeeding, says Dr Sears, “is the prime example of the mutual giving at the heart of attachment parenting, since both babies and mothers benefit from breastfeeding.”

And therein lies the rub. The benefit of breastfeeding to a baby is, to most, without question. But mothers? Surely breastfeeding is not for the benefit of the mother, beyond the self-sacrificial joy of providing for her little one? A burden, of sorts, gladly borne, but primarily for the sake of the beloved child. Weaning is liberation, from baby and from home. And with formula and cow’s milk so easily available in the West, the choice to continue breastfeeding once that child no longer physiologically requires it is baffling to many.

But extended breastfeeding is a choice, and a valid one at that. For some women, it is a choice pursuant to attachment parenting. For others, it is easier to allow a toddler to continue nursing than to enforce weaning. And for some women, probably more than will admit, breastfeeding is a source of pleasure, one which they themselves are unwilling to relinquish until it is absolutely necessary.

The notion of maternal pleasure in breastfeeding is one of the great taboos of Western culture. Because everyone knows that breasts are instruments of beauty, lovely sexual orbs manifested primarily for the enjoyment of men and the advertisement of Lynx deodorants. To enjoy breastfeeding – or for that matter co-sleeping, or popping your baby in a sling instead of a pram -is nothing less than socially deviant behaviour.

Look no further than a 2009 poll of Australians, which revealed that nearly a third of Australians felt that women should not breastfeed their babies beyond six months and that young adults aged 18-24 were the least supportive of a woman’s (and baby’s) right to breastfeed in public.

Yet among this same demographic, wearing the image of a woman’s exposed breasts or buttocks printed on a t-shirt is considered fashionable.

In a pornified world, breasts are to be seen only in terms of sexual gratification, even in breast cancer awareness campaigns.

It should be of no surprise, then, that of the four families photographed for Time’s cover story, it was Jamie Lynne Grumet who was chosen for the cover image. Jamie Lynn Grumet, conventionally attractive young blonde, tightly braless as her camouflage-pants-clad preschooler stared down the camera instead of up into his mother’s lovely face. Jamie Lynn Grumet, sexpot MILF who just loves to nurse.

By sexualising the cover image for their Attachment Parenting feature, Time hit the viral media jackpot, and affirmed the relevancy of print media in an e-world. But did anyone read the story? Time had the opportunity to explore motherhood and the individuality of each parent-child bond, to validate the mundane and empower women who make countercultural parenting choices. Instead, they chose to cash in on cookie-cutter sexploitation and mum-vs-mum sensationalism. A sadly predictable choice, but one which ultimately does neither women nor motherhood any great favours.

Nicole Jameson is an Adelaide-based mother of two and Collective Shout activist. While completing her Master of International Public Health she developed a keen interest in maternal and child health. She would have breastfed her three-year-old while writing this if he hadn’t gone and self-weaned nearly two years ago.

I’ve been asked my opinion on the Time magazine cover depicting a mother breastfeeding her three-year-old son. My view is that women should be able to breastfeed for as long as they wish and be supported and encouraged to do so. However Time Magazine’s cover of Jamie Lynne Grumet breastfeeding her three-year-old son, does more to sexualise breastfeeding than to promote it (could it even put some women off?). Most breastfeeding mothers cuddle their children in their arms while feeding. Here, Time has Grumet standing up (a better view of the breast perhaps?) and, somewhat unconventionally, depicting her child accessing her breast using a small chair. Both are staring at the camera in an impersonal image devoid of warmth – hardly the best advertisement for attachment parenting. Then of course there’s the headline ‘Are you mum enough’? which sets women up for competition and judgement. Mothering is challenging enough already, thinking they might not be ‘mum enough’ contributes to feelings of inadequacy.

Bitch Media echoes my thoughts on this image. And on three other magazine covers as well – two from Newsweek and one from Foreign Policy – in this May 10 piece by Kjerstin Johnson.

Read it here.

We are tricked into thinking that women on magazine covers and on TV naturally look like this in real life…we need to fight back!

By Miriam Nassif

Name is Miriam Nassif and I am 14 years-old so I completely understand what it like to be a teenage girl growing up in our modern day world and what it is like to deal with the things that are being thrown at us by the media.

I was lucky enough to have a childhood. I was allowed to play in the mud, sometimes eat mud, run around and be as messy as I liked. But many children around the world are being forced to dedicate themselves to a beauty pageant life. Small children are forced to dress like adults, wax their eyebrows (even though there are hardly any eyebrows to wax) and pose for hundreds of people so that their parents can win some money! And I thought it was bad enough to be a teenager dealing with this sort of pressure! A poor child is denied their childhood!

These days, who doesn’t walk into a Westfield shopping centre to see a topless girl in the most ridiculous poses to advertise perfume or a pair of jeans or something totally irrelevant to the advertisement? I know I have. We are constantly being given these images that imply that women have no purpose in life but to be “hot” and “sexy”. We are told that if we are not these things, we aren’t worth anything. The media and popular culture tells us that our whole being and value relies on how we look! This is totally and utterly wrong.

I am not here to say that we should all wear baggy clothes, have scruffy hair and that we must try our best to look as terrible and unattractive as we can. You can still look fine if you have bushy hair, a crazily curvy shape, zits (which we all have) and pale skin! I am simply saying that our worth is not based on how we look. Trust me, I know what it is like to want look nice and there is no crime in wanting to be so!

But where we go wrong is when we are defining nice and attractive. Because of major media influence, we have been tricked into thinking that beautiful is someone who is skinny (more like anorexic if you ask me), tanned skin, no zits, and big boobs. But let me tell you that a very few naturally fit this description, and many of the women you see who do fit this description in magazines or on TV have had a major touch up, got a fake tan, wear tonnes of makeup, have had a boob transplant or plastic surgery.

Did you know that if shop mannequins were real women, they would be too thin to menstruate and bear children? Did you know that in every 3 billion women that live on earth only 8 naturally look like supermodels? Did you know that if Barbie were a real women she would have to walk on all fours because of her unrealistic proportions?

We are tricked into thinking that women on magazine covers and on TV naturally look like this in real life!

We are all different and we are all beautiful in our own ways! Whether we are robust, skinny, pale, dark, covered in zits, have a big nose, huge ears or frizzy hair. We need to learn to live with the gorgeous body that is our own, not try and change it or be somebody else!

I can’t help but worry that the new Dolly model search will make girls wonder if they are OK as they are.

Girls feel so pressured to look perfect every single minute of every single day. Many girls feel like their life is not worth living if they don’t look good. Some teenage girls have even been overcome with depression or anxiety due to the stress and pressure to always look “sexy”. It is as if their whole life is based on how they look!

Your worth is not based on your looks! It is based on your personality! Our value is based on who we are as a person! Girls need to spend their time enjoying life, not trying to look good! Be yourself! Be YOU! Be the beautiful person that you were created to be! And enjoy life! If you are so busy being somebody else, who will be you?

And fight the culture that makes you feel bad. If more girls joined together to reject these negative messages, I think we would all feel better.

Miriam is a student and lives in the Blue Mountains, NSW

‘I was never as happy or as sure of myself after that. It was just too big of a let-down, because it wasn’t a rejection from a high school bully, it was a rejection from ‘the experts’, from people with professional opinion, and it was a closing of doors in my face from a glamorous and revered industry’

By Melanie*

Thank you for bringing the Dolly Model Reboot to my attention. I am disgusted and appalled. I’m sure you are already aware of the massive damage it can do. The fact that they have brought it back bothers me so much I wanted to share my story with you.

I was 15 when my mum entered me into the Dolly Model Competition. She told me it was to help me with my self-esteem which, at the time, was shockingly low. She said I was so beautiful there was no way I wouldn’t win. A mother’s naivety.

At first I was horrified because I had no respect for fashion models. I told mum that if I won, no one would ever respect me. I wanted more than to be a pretty face. I wanted to be a writer.

But she said, “What better way to get you noticed than to have everyone see your beautiful face?”

And it occurred to me that I would like to win.

I was bullied badly at school, long before I entered the competition. I had freckles and a flat chest and I was terribly shy, I wasn’t tall but I was very thin. You see, I barely ate. And I did think I had a pretty face. I’m part Native American, so I have very white skin with Indian eyes. I felt like it made me stand out.

I began to fantasise about winning the competition and not telling anybody, so they would all discover it when they saw the magazines and be sorry that they bullied me.

Of course, I didn’t win. I didn’t even make semi -finals, or get featured on the collage of entrants in the magazine. And I was crushed because I didn’t know why. The girl that won was pretty, but I just couldn’t see how I was different, or what made her, or all the other girls ‘better’ than me.

And I think the thing that is so painful is that they aren’t really better. They are all beautiful for different reasons, and for whatever reason they didn’t like the look of me.

But none of the entrants ever got to find out what was ‘wrong with us’. That’s what hurt the most. Not knowing why. All we got was the silent rejection of never having been called and knowing that for some reason we could never be told, we weren’t model pretty.

And because that was the whole point of the magazine’s message, that ‘successful’ was ‘pretty’ and ‘model’ was ‘most desired’, I started thinking that I would never really be successful because I wasn’t good enough, and that no matter how hard I worked, no one would ever pick me because I wasn’t pretty enough. The cold and silent rejection stung, and reinforced the message that I was not good enough, and that my bullies were right to pick on me.

It made me feel so worthless.

So 11 years later, after two sexually abusive ex-boyfriends, an eating disorder, an anxiety disorder that I’m still trying to control, and three suicide attempts, I have finally learned the value of myself and my life, and have clawed back some semblance of self-respect.

And I don’t blame the Dolly Model Competition for all of these things, but I do recognise it as a catalyst, and I know I was never as happy or as sure of myself after that. It was just too big of a let-down, because it wasn’t a rejection from a high school bully, it was a rejection from ‘the experts’, from people with professional opinion, and it was a closing of doors in my face from a glamorous and revered industry.

Teenage girls just are not equipped to deal with the conflicting messages, and they are not equipped to deal with damaging competition and rejection.

If I knew what I know now, I would never have accepted the competition in the first place. If people had been less fixated on my looks and more on my talents and interests, I might not have accepted a boyfriend that hurt me, I might not have tried to starve myself, I might not have tried to die.

Girls are worth more than how they look, and I cannot accept that, with teens feeling the way they do, magazines like Dolly are willing to exploit them.

The Dolly Model Competition is bad news. They have enough girls clamouring for stardom in the industry, without bringing the rest of us into it.

*Real name withheld at author’s request.

Read full blog here

Sunday Herald Sun, March 25, 2012

This month at Melbourne Westfield Fountain Gate, Elodie Russell beat 500 other teens to be named Victorian state finalist in the new Dolly Model Search.

The Geelong student and 500 other girls competed in the model search resurrected after 10 years.

Elodie is 14. But girls as young as 13 can enter. The winner will receive a modelling contract, fashion shoot and cover shoot for Dolly, and be a “Dolly ambassador.”

The would-be models, many just in high school, are told they can be the next Miranda Kerr. The month’s Dolly has the Victoria Secret model in a red dress with words and arrow: ‘This could be you!’

Kerr is touted as an “inspiration” for young girls. (I’m not sure it’s just girls who find online images of Kerr semi-naked inspiring).

I asked editor Tiffany Dunk why the original search was shut down. She said: “I understand it was over concerns about negative body imaging”.

Things are even worse now. In an age of rampant body hatred and eating disorders, the timing seems off.  In a video of the scouting session in Sydney, girls are asked why Kerr is an inspiration. “She’s got a great body!” is one of a number of similar responses.

Which shows us, no matter how many times words like “role model” and “inspiration” are thrown around, it’s still all about bodies. Even now girls will be comparing themselves to Elodie and thinking they are just not good enough.

Body image and eating disorder specialists I spoke to are concerned about the ability of a 13- year-old to navigate the world of modelling. Why is Dolly including such young girls when globally there is a move away from younger models?

In 2005 there was a storm over having a 12-year-old as the face of Gold Coast Fashion Week. Three years later Australian Fashion Week organisers bowed to pressure and dropped a 14- year-year-old Polish girl as the face of the event.

Australia’s Body Image Code of Conduct recommends only using those over 16 to model adult clothes or work or model in fashion shows targeting an adult audience.

The idea that 13 or 14 is too young to model is often met with “But Miranda Kerr started at that age and she’s doing great!”

But how many girls fell by the wayside, how many were damaged due to the harmful consequences of internalizing the message that their value as a person is in how others view and judge their bodies?

The revamped comp has a special spin. “Become a Model Citizen”. Dolly wants “more than a pretty face”, it wants a “great role model for Dolly readers.” It wants girls to “Have fun, don’t let looks rule your life!” (at the same time Chadwick’s judge lists ‘looks” first in what he’s seeking).

Dolly has enlisted the help of The Butterfly Foundation. They’ve prepared “an awesome body image tip sheet”  and will also conduct a workshop with finalists. Dolly also says it will have strict rules on how its winner can be used.

But while I support Butterfly’s goals, I’m not sure telling yourself to be beautiful on the inside and the rest is enough to deal with a message dominant in the modelling and fashion industries that you have to be hot to matter.

Thrusting any girl into an industry where they are taught that what matters most is that they fit some cookie-cutter mould of what women should look like, is troubling.

Jess Hart, Dolly’s 1998 model search winner, posed with Jen Hawkins on a 2010 Grazia cover last year headed: “Jen & Jess: how to get their $5M bodies!”

Hart told Grazia she gets “super strict about her diet” prior to a photoshoot.

It is difficult to see how a Dolly Model search winner will deviate from the standard beauty ideal.

It would be one thing to pluck a girl out of a crowd and offer her a contract. But Dolly (with the apparent support of Butterfly) is enabling competition between teen girls on the basis (primarily) of physical appearance.

Dunk says readers want a “relatable teen role model.” “We have endless research that girls respond best to seeing “someone like me” in the media,” she told me.

But couldn’t Dolly give readers a great role model outside a competitive appearance-focussed event in which girls are compared and judged and learn life is just one big beauty pageant?

What about a role model who is an awesome athlete, or musician, or campaigner against violence against women? A teen anti-bullying ‘hero’ writing advice columns – ‘someone like me’ doing amazing things in the world.

It seems to me girls who are truly role models for other girls would be the least likely to enter, because their goals in life are beyond physical appearance. So the true role models may never be discovered.

Rather than introduce them to an industry which glorifies the cult of celebrity and fashion – and contributes to body image despair – why not foster more meaningful values and aspirations in girls? Now that would be inspiring.

Dolly continues to promote appearance over substance

Read entire blog at Generation Next

Last month I asked you to ‘Vote against Mossimo’s Peep Show Sexism’ and support women who were subverting Mossimo’s sex industry theme.

I’m delighted to announce that our very own ‘Naughty Nicole’ has taken out the prize for most popular entry. She wins a camera! Here’s a post from Collective Shout’s website about Nicole’s victory over sexist promotions.

Update: ASB says no to Mossimo peep show

Not only did Nicole turn Mossimo’s campaign upside down in a radical act of subversion, now the Advertising Standards Board has upheld complaints against Mossimo’s peepshow ad campaign. Open this link  for extracts of complaints against Mossimo’s peep show promo, Mossimo’s response (Collective Shout gets a mention – thanks for that!) and the ASB’s decision.

MTR on Channel 7′s Morning Show today with adolescent psychologist Dr Michael Carr-Gregg and dance studio teacher Nikki Webster, commenting on an episode of US reality TV show ‘Dance Moms’ in which little girls are taught sexually provocative dance routines.

‘Shine your light by taking a stand, not by taking part. It’s not too late’

US supergroup Switchfoot will be performing and signing posters at City Beach Queen Street store in Brisbane this afternoon.

While band members are at it with the pen and the posters, we’d like them to sign our Change.org petition calling on their special hosts, youth surf store City Beach, to remove porn-themed merchandise from sale.

It is a mystery to us why such a respected band would want to lend its good name to a company which trades in hyper-sexualised images of women and conditions and socialises young men to think of women only in terms of sexual gratification, as always available and ready for sex.

We don’t understand why a band known for its ethics in the industry would want to associate itself with a store selling a t.shirt with the image of a woman with a black eye, crying, under the wording “…It’s only illegal if you get caught”. Or the Hustler t.shirt “Talk Shit Get Hit”.

Why doesn’t Switchfoot come out and condemn these?

And is the band accepting money from the sale of porn and violence-themed t.shirts to do their gig today?

In a response to women who have protested Switchfoot lending their good name to City Beach in this cross promotion, the band says it has asked City Beach to remove porn themed products from the store while they are performing.

I wonder if there will be anything much left after that?

And sticking a pile of pornified tees behind the counter for an hour – what difference will that make? City Beach will be back pimping the same merchandise within seconds of the amps being unplugged.

Remember, this is a store which flogs ‘Two In The Shirt’, TITS brand, which uses famous porn stars on its clothing designs. TITS was also nominated for ‘Best apparel’ award in the pornography industry’s annual awards ceremony, the 2012 AVN Awards (alongside ‘Best double penetration’ and ‘Best young girl scene’, in case you didn’t know).

If you enter the URL on TITS t.shirts you find a series of blog posts of images of women, including one in underwear with a bag over her head with hole in it and ‘free blow job’ written on the bag.

Meanwhile back at City Beach HR, Anita Dorwald appears blissfully unaware of any connection with porn images or brands. (City Beach defends sale of porn themed clothing )

Last year Collective Shout published an open letter urging retailers to stop selling pornographic menswear. Signatories included Child Advocate Noni Hazlehurst, The White Ribbon Foundation and authors Steve Biddulph and Maggie Hamilton.

Here is Switchfoot’s response to our complaints

We received your email regarding the objectionable merchandise sold at City Beach. We appreciate you bringing your concerns to our attention.

Although we are not responsible for what a retailer promotes or sells to its customers, we are responsible for creating an enjoyable atmosphere for our fans. With this in mind, we have asked City Beach to remove these items during our performance.

We’ve always tried to bring our songs of hope across the globe to everyone- regardless of nationality, race, religious belief, or any other categorization. With this in mind, there are a wide variety of people with a wide variety of lifestyles represented at our concerts. That is our goal. And of course, not everyone who attends will agree with every other person there. Even the venues we play are dramatically different from night to night. If you are offended by an aspect of the venue or the crowd, we respect your decision if you choose not to attend; we hold you and your convictions in high regard.

However, we believe that these songs of light were meant to shine everywhere, including the dark. Thank you again for your concern. We hope that we’ll see you the next time we pass through Australia.

Switchfoot

They’ve missed the point.

Here’s a reply from activist Nicole. She nails it.

Dear Brandon,

Thanks for your reply.

Your response, however, is incredibly disappointing.

It is not the concert venue which is offensive. It is not even the presence of explicit and degrading material which is offensive. What is offensive, is the notion of a rock band with a youth following, promoting a company which unapologetically and deliberately sells p*rnographic material to Australian teenagers. What is even more offensive, is the notion that this band is doing so in the name of Jesus.

By playing this gig with the merchandise removed, you are creating an enjoyable atmosphere for your fans for one hour. But in doing so, you are losing the opportunity to create an enjoyable and safe atmosphere for them to live and grow in beyond that moment.

Please, look at the links which I have sent you. Consider the message you are sending about the acceptability of the way City Beach make their mark on the minds and bodies of young Australians. Shine your light by taking a stand, not by taking part. It’s not too late.

Sincerely,

Nicole

As Professor of Law at Flinders University and Vice-President of the Australian Council on Children and the Media, Elizabeth Handsley commented yesterday:

Nobody said they were responsible for what a retailer promotes or sells, but they ARE responsible for the retailers they choose to support and promote.

Nor is anybody suggesting it’s about people in the audience disagreeing with each other – like some people are going to be offended by the ABSENCE of porn?

And if you don’t mind me saying so, all this ‘songs of light’ business only clouds the issue.

We’re all into shining light into dark places.

But shining light doesn’t mean a co-branding exercise where lots of young people who come to see you perform are brought into a store trading in porno-inspired images of women and encouraged to see it as worthy of their custom because Switchfoot performed there.

Switchfoot needs to switch feet and back out.

See also:

Switchfoot please manage your responsibility to young people wisely, Family Factor

Collective Shout calls on Switchfoot to pull out of City Beach event

How City Beach conditions boys to porn: one dad’s plea for something better for our boys

Does the Human Rights Commission really care about gender equality?

UPDATE:Protests at City Beach, Sydney, Brisbane

Switchfoot meets with Collective Shout activists outside City Beach in Brisbane. Read more at Collective Shout.

Picture: Jon Foreman from Switchfoot meets with Melinda Liszewski during our City Beach Brisbane protest.

Read about Collective Shout’s recent protests in Sydney and Brisbane here.

And don’t forget to sign the petition  calling on City Beach to stop selling porn-themed products to young people.

Sign here

See also: PETA pimps its ethics, MTR, Weekly Times