Time mag breastfeeding cover doubletake: What about the stats?

The US ranks last among the 36 industrialized nations in support of breastfeeding. But the extended breastfeeding cover image – as in an elderly toddler suckling his mother's breast – is Time's angle into the American trend of attachment parenting.

Time
Time magazine's current breastfeeding cover. The US ranks last among the 36 industrialized nations in support of breastfeeding. But the extended breastfeeding cover image – as in an elderly toddler suckling his model-mother's breast – is Time's angle into the American trend of attachment parenting.

So, we usually try over here at Modern Parenthood not judge a book by its cover.  But when we got a glimpse of the Time Magazine cover this week, which was released online today....  wowsers.  I just couldn’t help but break our own rule.

Because, if you haven’t seen yet, this Time Magazine cover shows Los Angeles mom Jamie Lynne Grumet, posing defiantly, in skinny jeans and hand on hip, with her 3-year-old son, who is wearing camouflage cargo pants and a gray long sleeve t-shirt and... has her left breast in his mouth.

Ah, nothing like making an already contentious subject among the moms even more controversial. 

RELATED: Are you a helicopter parent? Take our quiz!

The cover goes with a Time Magazine story about Bill Sears, the attachment parenting guru whose books on child rearing have, according to some culture watchers, changed the way American moms interact with their kids. (The article goes into depth about the way his philosophies have been adopted and challenged in the modern parenting world.)

Among Dr. Sears’s parenting suggestions, such as “baby-wearing” (keeping the baby close to you in a sling) and co-sleeping (sharing a bed with baby), he promotes breastfeeding. 

And not just breastfeeding, but extended breastfeeding. 

Hence the 3-year-old on the magazine’s cover. 

Now, kudos, I guess, to Ms. Grumet for putting her face (and other body parts) out there to show that she stands behind her beliefs about this particular Sears-ian tenet.

But I worry that the provocative nature of the pose will actually obscure some of the real issues surrounding breastfeeding in this country.

Because the challenges to nursing – which study after study has shown to be the most healthy way to nourish a baby – are significant in the US.

In its report this week about global motherhood, Save The Children ranked the US last out of 36 industrialized countries in its support of breastfeeding. A lack of paid maternity leave and the prevalence of formula marketing within the country’s maternity wards contributed to the low ranking.  (Gotta love that. Or how you get formula coupons after every grocery store purchase of a nursing-related item.)

A 2010 article in the journal “Pediatrics” estimated that low rates of breastfeeding added $13 billion to medical costs in the US. Only an estimated 35 percent of American moms are exclusively breastfeeding their children at three months, even though the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends exclusive nursing until the baby is six months old. (Less than half of moms nurse at all at six months.)

The numbers of breastfeeding moms drop significantly as the child gets older. Although it’s not easy to find statistics, a study published in “Pediatrics” from the early 2000s found that around 17 percent of moms were still nursing when their children were a year old, and that 5.7 percent of moms still breastfed when the child was 18 months.

RELATED: Are you a helicopter parent? Take our quiz!

The World Health Organization says that breastfeeding is beneficial for toddlers aged two and beyond.

So – we have some questions to explore here.  And if we’re lucky, Time’s cover will help prompt those conversations.

After everyone is finished doing that double take in the checkout line.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.