Shut Up, Time Magazine

Two weeks ago, my cousin gave birth to a healthy baby boy.

This new, tiny human, for the first many months of his life, will be breastfed and will wear reusable cotton diapers.

Although I believe in breastfeeding and natural diapering, I don’t think either of these choices will have any significant effect on how the baby turns out later in life.

What’s more important, I think, is the fact that my cousin and her husband are sure to be excellent, enthusiastic and loving parents.

Popular media seem to disagree with me on this point.

According to the recent sensationalistic cover story in Time Magazine about attachment parenting (brazenly titled “Are You Mom Enough?”) and the frenzied debate it provoked about mothering in general, my cousin’s breastfeeding and natural diapering make her a feminist, an anti-feminist, an ideal mother, a terrible mother, a saint and a monster.

It just depends on who you ask.

The Time cover for May 21 displays an attractive, young, blonde woman nursing her son, who looks old enough to be in kindergarten.

The story discusses attachment parenting, which maintains that employing certain early parenting practices — such as breastfeeding, co-sleeping and “baby-wearing” — will lead to happier, healthier kids.

Supporters of attachment parenting claim that, as mentioned above, it leads to healthier kids.

Attachment parenting has also been described as a paragon of feminism for (among other reasons) its “refusal to endure a male-centered obstetric history that has taken over women’s bodies and molded them to their preferences for their convenience, their comfort and for their worldview.”

So, according to this view, mothers who employ attachment parenting are perfect, angelic feminists whose perfect, angelic children are probably going to take over the world and have magical attachment-babies of their own.

On the other hand, opponents of attachment parenting say it pressures mothers to make motherhood their entire identity and implies that in order to be a good mother, one must sacrifice everything and devote one’s entire life to motherhood.

In other words, opponents see attachment parenting as anti-feminist, pulling women away from having a life and career outside the home.

The children of these mothers are going to become dependent, wimpy kids who cry easily and obtusely eat glue in the back of the classroom.

I’m not buying either argument.

First of all, “feminism” is not so easily defined as adhering to “non-patriarchal” obstetrics or the idea that women work outside the home.

Let’s try a broader definition: Feminism is when women — and men — do what they want, regardless of social gender constructs.

This might mean being a stay-at-home dad, or a working mom, or vice versa, or an attachment parent; it’s whatever ultimately makes sense for the individual parent
or couple.

Second of all, maybe we should be less concerned with whether mothers’ parenting methods of choice are “feminist” and spend more time promoting healthy parenting that fits individuals’ respective lifestyles and values.

It’s absurd to criticize someone for taking on the enormously difficult (and selfless) task of raising a kid because they’re not doing a “good enough” job.
Let’s let parents be parents, whatever that might look like.

­— ccleahy@indiana.edu