To say I was disappointed with Time Magazine’s newest issue would be an understatement. Sure, they are in the business of making money, but it’s bad journalism at best. Blanket statements such as those claiming that there are no studies to support attachment theory are blatantly wrong. It shows that the authors spent virtually no time researching – something I actually like for journalists to do. If you aren’t going to actually research a topic, what is the point of writing something? Ah, yes. We are back to the money.
With such a biased reporting, it’s no surprise to hear that Nestle, one of the major formula companies and biggest offender of the WHO Code of Breastfeeding, has one of the authors on their payroll. It’s also no surprise that the one expert they spoke of regarding attachment parenting was Dr. William Sears. Contrary to Time’s report, he didn’t invent attachment parenting any more than he invented breasts. He just happened to be great at marketing and coined the term, bringing with it a bunch of money for himself. And attachment parenting? It’s not all about breasts.
But I have to look at Time’s choice to run such a senstionalized, and obviously biased, issue on this particular topic at this particular time. It’s a war out there ladies, and it isn’t a war between moms. It’s a war against women’s rights. Recently, women have been losing all sorts of rights in various states across our country. It’s something we need to stop. So, I have to wonder, why would Time choose to run an issue such as this, essentially utilizing the age old divide and conquer technique, at this particular pont in time? Sure, Time is in it for the money, but they would have made money by selling issues based on fact and without pitting women against one another in the always tiring mommy wars.
Ladies, fellow mothers, fellow daughters, and friends…..do you band together against each other based on a poor excuse of sensationalized journalism? Or do you look toward the real issue and stick together for human rights, including those of women?