Overexposed on Time Magazine
Last week’s Time Magazine cover received much backlash. The front page displays Jamie Grumet, a twenty-six-year-old mother, breastfeeding. Instead of her son, Aram, being of the typical age for breastfeeding—a year or younger—the child shown is three years old.
Aram stands on a kid-size chair in order to reach his mother’s breast, while Jamie gives off a confident pose, with one hand on her hip and the other holding her son’s back. The picture is clearly meant to be “in your face.” Grumet stands by the magazine’s photograph selection. She notes that “there were other photos that were more nurturing, kind of like our daily life, the way we do it. I don’t think it would have been quite as provocative.” As a result of this decision, the audience is not presented with a realistic view of breastfeeding. Rather, the controversial picture negates the readers’ ability to form their stance on the social issue because they are more focused on the inappropriateness of the image. Grumet explains, “the statement that I wanted to make was this is a normal option for your child and it should not be stigmatized.” However, the overexposed picture does just the opposite. It’s not normal to be three and still breastfeeding. It’s not normal to make a private and tender moment into a public one.
Furthermore, the byline reads “Are You Mom Enough?” suggesting that if you don’t offer the nutritional value of breastfeeding to your children, you aren’t tough enough or a good enough mother. Questioning one’s parenting capability and dedication once again runs the fine line of appropriateness.
This isn’t the first time that the Time Magazine succeeded at pushing the boundaries. A cover dating back from November of 2010 illustrates a married couple, titled “Who Needs Marriage?” Rather than presenting a thought-provoking question, the magazine argues in subtitles that “men do more than women. And it works better for richer than poorer.” Apparently they missed the memo that attacking the female gender is not the best way to reel in your audience and bring about respectable debates.
If these types of covers continue, the buzz behind the stories will slowly morph into a Maury episode.
A Haircut and a Suspension
The topic of school authority has been put to question more often than usual this month. A previous blog post mentioned the arrest of a young child in school because of a tantrum. The parents of the child were not even contacted as the school’s first alternative. Closer to home, on the campus of our very own Brooklyn College, students were arrested when a peaceful protest against tuition hikes took a threatening turn.
Should school authority have a say in their students’ haircuts though? What would you do if you were suspended for a haircut you had? Maybe this action might have been reasonable if a student had shaved a phallic symbol onto their head but Patrick Gonzales is in this outrageous predicament for having shaved Matt Bonner of the San Antonio Spurs onto his head. This haircut is being deemed as “threatening” and “severe” by the principal of The Woodlake Hills Middle School.
The principal is in “righteous fear of the apparently inevitable anarchy and lawlessness in the school halls” that would result if Patrick walked the school halls with this haircut. This claim and his fear seem so exaggerated though because the shaving is benign and qualifies as a cool haircut. Its way cooler than the haircut I currently have. I can’t imagine chaos erupting over this student’s haircut, maybe a couple of head turns, approving pounds, and comments of the “Bro, that’s badass,” type.
- Sara Najam
IMG source: http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/D.mD1NRCstewGPhwjOaJeQ—/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA—/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/sptusnbaexperts/MB51612.jpg
Article Source: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/shaving-picture-matt-bonner-head-could-net-young-013230150.html#more-21327