General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhere's TIME MAG Photo of Military Mothers in Fatigues, Called to Duty while Breast Feeding?
Last edited Sun May 13, 2012, 08:55 PM - Edit history (1)
Would TIME do a Photo Op of Mother in Military Fatigueswith Breast Pump trying to Send Milk to BabyI was thinking about when the MSM used to do stories about the Military Women who had to go to Iraq or then Afghanistan...and how they had both signed up to Military for benefits and that Husband had been called and now the Mother was called for her duty. The kids were left in care of Grandparents or family. There were many stories about this on old DU.
What I'm wondering is why "TIME" didn't do a photo op of a Mother who was called to go to either Iraq or Afghanistan leaving a kid she was breastfeading and how SHE COPED?
What if she tried to use a Breat Pump and send her Milk back to her child? What if it was important enough that our Military could Express Ship that Milk back and that TIME would do a photo op of how difficult that might have been for this female serving in our Wars to try to keep that connection between her and her young child...by providing the breast milk that would continue the bond.
I know this seems "off the wall" but many young folks signed up to Military for Benefits and future College training...and yet still had families (our jobs have been going overseas for decades now) and these young people had kids...and signed up and were called and yet they had to leave their kids with a bottle and processed milk/formula and NO MSM..(that I've seen) EVER did a PHOTO OP of those WOMEN and THEIR CHILDREN?
WHY?
(ON EDIT) SOME FOLKS MIGHT NOT UNDERSTAND what I'm referencing in this post. It's about This:
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)soldiers have to be prepared for war. Most soldiers have PT and have to be there like 6:30 in the morning. They are lucky enough to get their children to day care. Personally I think when 2 parents are in the military one should get out. It not fair to the children. I know many are going to be pissed with what I am saying but it is the truth. Any single parent should be sent packing wheter it's a man or a woman. Soldiers have to keep their minds on their jobs. I have seen what happens when soldiers are deployed and the crap that is left behind. MSM doesn't hear about that. I know in my husband unit we had to deal with alot of stuff we shouldn't of have. I grew up around the military enviornment all my life and working with them to. There are good female soldiers and if it is a career that is fine but I just don't think it is fair when a woman who gets pregnant and can't hold up her end. Yet I've seen some female soldiers who are heroes who are happy in the military.
Cave_Johnson
(137 posts)The problem comes around when a proper Family Care Plan is not up to snuff.
I work with several dual-military couples and it is a tough road but it is doable.
I do agree with your overall point though, if they can't provide the proper care then the military doesn't have the obligation to care for them when they don't hold up their half of the bargain.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)I would be "pissed off" at a reply to what I asked?
What I was asking is why are "some mothers and their bond with children over breast feeding given a Photo Op in "TIME" and other Mothers who might want to continue a bond with their children are now "required" to fulfill their duty to serve for the Military that they signed up with and yet...THEY do NOT (that I've seen) get THEIR photos on TIME/NEWSWEEK or any other MSM Publication.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if a Woman/Mother in Battle Fatigues could be show with her Breat Pump trying to feed and bond with her Kid Back Home?
Why aren't Mothers of all given press? And surely those Mothers who are in our Military should be given a COVER and PHOTO OP showing THEIR efforts to BOND with their own children they had to leave behind because of their TOS Agreements. It would seem that fairness should prevail here?
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)to wear the uniform properly. I don't think a soldier mother belongs on the cover of Time Mag. unless she is ready to show how she is prepared for everday on the job duty for preparing for war. That is down right silly to put a soldier (and that is what she is) on the cover breast feeding or bumping her breast. It is military like. Women have fought hard and long to be taken very seriously wanting to be on the frontlines. Civilians wouldn't like see that picture. We don't have enough men enlisting.
I just don't think it is right. I would feel the same in any job like police officers, fire women. The only different is soldiers have a tour they signed up for and they should honor it. We paid alot of taxpayer money for them to be in the military.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)is pretty much done.
Ever notice that when there are stories about breast cancer, they almost always take the opportunity to show a woman naked from the waist up, sometimes from the back only, sometimes from the side? The same is not true when there is a story on prostate cancer.
Boobs sell stories & magazines.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)cynatnite
(31,011 posts)wearing her battle fatigues.
That would make for a hell of a great cover. That would be a cover worth framing in my house.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)"I think when 2 parents are in the military one should get out. It not fair to the children."
Yeah, that's what I thought. So when I got pregnant, I got out.
And when I was still breastfeeding - SURPRISE! I got called back in against my will.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)noamnety
(20,234 posts)"I think when 2 parents are in the military one should get out."
I didn't realize you meant that women shouldn't enlist unless they could guarantee that they wouldn't get pregnant for the next 8 years. I thought you just meant they should take the out for the sake of their children if they did get pregnant and the father was also serving.
Most 19 year olds can't commit to being celibate for the next 8 years, birth control sometimes fails, women sometimes get raped, abortion isn't always an option overseas. Maybe women shouldn't enlist, eh?
If, however, you were just saying they should get out when they get pregnant, there was a problem in your post, because it sounds like you didn't realize that women don't have the option of opting out if they are pregnant.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)I don't know what the policy is now. I have a lot of feelings on the military and what should be done. But many here would like it when I speak the truth. So am already finding my comments are upsetting some. So I'll leave it at that. Women shouldn't be raped that is a fact. The military isn't doing anything to stop it. Coming from a long line of family members being in the military I wouldn't let my daughter join the military if she can't even be safe from our own soldiers.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)"request a transfer to inactive reserves" with getting out of the military entirely.
You probably saw people get transferred to an inactive status and incorrectly assumed they were out of the military.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)What a completely unfair statement! Some people were recalled a decade after they'd finished their service. How the hell do you put your entire life on hold for that?
The recalls during the Bush years were unprecedented. Are you really suggesting that if you sign up for the military you should never plan on having a family?
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)a father-in-law who retired 24 yrs from the Army and my own husband 21 yr retired from the Army. Both father and father-in-law both wounded soldiers. I know if a person joins for 4 yrs and complete their tour and they get out the military can still call you back from inactive duty for another 6 yrs. Don't shoot the messenger, it is what it is. The military is like no other job in the world. That is why I believe in the draft. It isn't fair that not everyone is sharing in the fight. That is why they are calling these people back to active duty. I feel bad for those people who did their duty. But it's time to share the fight. That is where the anger should be. But as soon as little middle class Johnny gets drafted and killed then you will hear people screaming about it and watch how fast middle class america get out in the streets protesting just like in the 60s because of VN.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)You honestly believe that if you join the military you shouldn't be allowed to have a family? Because that seems to be what you are saying.
Women get pregnant getting raped in the military and they aren't allowed to quit. Your brother and SIL die in a crash and you are assigned guardianship of their kids. Your parents die and you are assigned guardianship of your underage minor sibling(s).... Life's circumstances are sometimes waaayyyy out of your control beyond that fact that having a family, even if you are a soldier, should appear to be a basic right.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)That is what happens when you sign on the dottied line. I don't care. All I know if it were me and I was single I would get out. It isn't fair to my child and it isn't fair to the military mission. No woman has a right to be raped any place, period. That is one thing I have a problem with the military. Women are not getting their day in court. That isn't right.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)"All I know if it were me and I was single I would get out."
No, you wouldn't - because it wouldn't be an option. Your option is to transfer to the inactive reserves and hope you aren't activated, not to get out.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)like that's even permanently possible while a person is within a 40 year window +/-.
You don't seem to have a handle on the facts of the military, enlistment or how this works. Other DUers have already tried to correct you but you seem to be impervious to their facts.
Military parents can be ready to go as agreed upon when enlisting. You're insulting many, many fine military parents, even military DUers.... And you are clearly saying that NO soldiers should ever have families. Lets just say I 110% disagree with you on both points. Soldiers (cops, firefighters, airline pilots or any other profession that takes one away from their families for extended periods of time) have every right to have a family imo and can and do perform just as admirably, perhaps even better because they are parents.
I think our convo is finished. Have a good night.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)My husband and I both were in the military together and we had 2 children with us. He was infantry and I was a medic. Our children did not suffer in any way as a result. In fact, they thrived pretty well. My husband has been deployed twice and we both have gone out on bivouacs. Again, our family did pretty well.
For families with both parents in the military, the smart thing always to do is to have contingencies when both parents are unavailable. My husband and I had this with our children. We both had parents who could take our children should we both had been deployed. We had friends on base to help as well. In fact, a lot of military families helped each other out. It was a great supportive group we all had. I still miss them.
Also, I was pregnant while in the military. Again, no problems. As with all pregnant women in the military, their duties are modified as their pregnancies progress. It's no different with a male soldier who physically can't perform his duties due to an injury. After a time, when deemed physically fit, the women are back on full duty just like everyone else.
We had a good life.
Now, not all was perfect then, but that's life. It's never perfect and you get along the best you can. That's what we did then and what we do now.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)cynatnite
(31,011 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)go alittle nuts trying to make our points. You didn't. Your alright. I can respect you for that.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)...you should not sign on. That applied inside the military, as well as outside of it.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)if this is about "Being a Good Mom?"
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)can't do both.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)1. You have faulty information.
2. Your post sounds sexist - unless you meant that dads should get out too because you can't be a good "parent" while serving in the military.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)pregnant in the military could AT THE TIME could get out if she wanted. I just thought that was still the policy. If am wrong sorry. Please go back and read my posts. I did say either one of them should get out if they were married. If that is sexist sorry. Am a woman and I have seen when my husband was at Ft Bragg what was going on with children whose parents didn't properly had their forms done. Personally for me if a male or a female aren't married and they have their child with them they should get out of the military. That is my personal feelings. I don't care what anyone thinks. The military has one mission. A soldier needs to think about that job. Bring the draft back.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)My experience predates that (the 80's) and no, you could not "get out" if you were pregnant and wanted out. You are transferred off active duty status to inactive reserves, from which you can get called right back up.
Some of your other statements aren't logical in the real world. "Personally for me if a male or a female aren't married and they have their child with them they should get out of the military." You know people get divorced, right? And you can't just get out of the military because you divorced.
Then you go on about the draft - but that doesn't solve your parenting concerns; it compounds them.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)you a nice day. There isn't going to be changing anyone's mind. So we'll leave it at that.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)It's just a fact that we weren't allowed out of the service when pregnant, we are transferred to inactive reserves.
I make a strong point about that because it's so often misrepresented, and it was to me even when I was pregnant right up until the day I was "outprocessing" and was told to get in line for an ID photo. That was my What the Hell moment. Enlisted in 84, Had my daughter in 87, was called up again in 89 (5 years after enlisting!).
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)serve 4 yrs and be inactive but they can call you back so they can get another 6 yrs to make a total of 10 yrs. Right? But let's face it Bush started that and it is legal. But if we had the draft none of that would of happened. They can even call my husband back into service even after retired up to the age of 60. Of course we know that wouldn't really happen unless they are in an MOS that they really need for training usually and a WW.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Or take guardianship of minor children, even if both people are in the military or they're a single parent? Really?
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)give temporary guardianship to your family members. Then after you are assigned to a military post you can get them back. Those are facts.
Here it is in a nutshell for me. They should separate the women and the men like they should to. You may remember the WACS. They had separate barracks and weren't allowed in to some MOSs. It seemed to be smoothier then today. I know that this isn't a popular view. But that isn't the way it is now. There use to be an old saying "If the Army wanted you to have a wife they would have isued you one". Way back then they even had to get permission to marry. Maybe that is alittle to extreme today but the military isn't like any other job. You know that you can be called any time and you have to go off. The military doesn't want to hear wait I gotta find a babysitter. Sorry it is my feelings.
obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)Again? To exclude them from mingling with men, to make them have separate barracks and mess halls, and to exclude them from certain "MOSs" (this term is very outdated, btw)?
Thus, women will not get promotions or paid as much as men who are less capable than they are.
Niiiice.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)the jennie back into the bottle. I wish I could on a lot of things but I can't and just because we are talking doesn't make it so. Just on one portion for me I would change is unwed parents in the military. That is an issue for me. I don't care if it is the father or a mother.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)They can also refuse (or pretend to refuse) to understand what you're telling them in plain English.
I also enlisted in '84 and I know that what you're saying is correct. Still, a lot of people seem to believe the lie that pregnant women and single parents can just "get out". Of course they can't and they haven't been able to for a long, long time.
obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)Even if they wanted to. My cousin was pregnant then WHILE AT BRAGG. Ft. Bragg has wonderful medical facilities and support for
Why should a single parent leave a socialist environment were they and their child are taken care of and given great resources and opportunities? For what? A job making much less, no housing, no subsidized child care, no medical care (or expensive bad care), no support net? Military bases have wonderful support nets, whether stateside, in England, Germany, Japan, wherever.
Your posts in this thread do not reflect either the reality of US economy or society, nor the reality of the modern Armed Forces (and Coast Guard).
By your logic, single parents should also not be cops, firefighters, paramedics, forest rangers, nursing, doctors, construction, crabbers/fisher folk, etc.
obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)As well as their male spouses. Including some DUers, and including some members of my family.
Both parents can be military and cam certainly both be good parents. And, why should the mother not reup or resign a commission (if they are even allowed to)? Why not the father?
Should a single mother in the military, who has housing, college, medical, daycare, etc. leave the military to get a minimum wage job, where she and her child will have a much lower standard of living???
Also, families/children can go pretty much anyplace you are deployed, except for Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Korea, and the odds of being deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan are much lower now than they have been.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)simple. Again sorry. FOR ME that is how I feel. You don't and thats ok and I respect you for that.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)No need to make it a bigger deal than it already is (which isn't all that big in my opinion.)
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Months!
Everyone will see that photo checking out in Grocery Line, and in Barnes & Noble, or anyplace that Magazines are Distributed like "TIME" for big eyeball reviews.
So this story which might seem trivial to some will have the lasting impact on those who only read waiting in LINES..which is so common across America. And, bit by PHOTO OP BIT...it will sink into the psyche's of those of us who ....all too often these days....Must Stand in Line!
That's why it's important...I think.. It's the lasting impact of the image to divide us all further apart.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)that woman is still nursing her son who is 4 years old. She plans to breast feed him for another couple of years.
ejpoeta
(8,933 posts)can't remember the name of it but it had to do with instead of dr spock who says let the kids cry this doctor encourages something else. I only skimmed it wondering why there was a picture of a five year old breastfeeding. For me the cutoff was when I got bit.... about 14 mos. And there was no way I would leave a kid to scream and cry either.... just sayin.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)Lemmy
(15 posts)Judging by the number of threads and the number of times I've had to hear about this on TV, it looks like TIME magazine's goal of generating sales of their publication has succeeded.
This entire thing is part of the giant distraction machine that is the American mainstream media.
To wit:
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-time-magazine-covers-explain-why-americans-know-nothing-about-the-world-2011-11
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)their post in the way they intended. That's what I think, anyway. They wanted a reaction to their Photo Op...but, they didn't want DISCUSSION from OTHER ANGLES or counter attacks about "WHY NOT ALL WOMEN? WHY JUST THIS ONE?"
That's all I'm saying here. There are so many women and they show this one in a Photo Op where it's ALL ABOUT HER...and her Son is just an Appendage to her on a stool FGS!
It looked like someone trying to rip off the old Norman Rockwell Covers from the "Saturday Evening Post" many years ago. The style was a Rip Off.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)They did that cover just to get people talking. Why wasn't the woman oriental, black, hispanic. White is it only the white woman. I mean we could pick out lots of things. Why wasn't the woman chubby. You know there are more of them then women like the one who is on the cover and am sure the breast feed. It's all about selling. Nothing more or nothing less. All about the money.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)PHOTO OP on their Cover.
The whole thing looked seedy and leaving out all the mothers who don't look like the TIME COVER or who have her money and resources ...it made it a 1% over the 99% ...and yet the dialog went on and on.
If I had the ability to use my creativity and could Photoshop a MILITARY MOTHER with a "Feed Tube" trying to Breast Feed her Infant after she was sent to SERVE in Our WARS...I could do something "REALLY COOL" that would catch all of your attention!
Alas..I don't have those abilities but, I hope that "somewhere out there" someone will understand what I was trying to say and DO IT! DO a COUNTER to "TIME MAG" and show the TRUE COST of MOTHERS AND FATHERS LEAVING FAMILIES FOR THESE ENDLESS WARS!
Someone NEEDS TO DO IT. I'm only Asking someone to do it.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)With my second child, I was working when I went back to work while she was still nursing and so my uniform was business casual. Other nursing moms are wearing nurses uniforms, police uniforms, paramedic uniforms, surgeons scrubs, and yes presumably military uniforms.
I think this is a GREAT opportunity to show that having a child doesn't necessarily have to hold a career/working woman back in the least. I would have LOVED to see a woman in her work "uniform" on the cover rather than a stylized SAHM.
Our culture/society needs to figure this important stuff out. Family care needs to be a big part of the equation. Too often it is not. Most other industrialized countries have long since figured this out (giving women a year off after childbirth for example).
Its as though having a child when you are a working mom, yes even a military mom, is something that still can't be mentioned or factored into our culture. Crazy.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Not all of us are really "up on acronyms" ...so it's helpful to know.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)She is rather annoying.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)a way to pick up cash working weekends. She got out when George Bush senior was elected. Shortly thereafter, the reserves were called up for the First Gulf War. She knew at least one new mother who was breast feeding who got called up and sent to Kuwait. This woman had been recruited into the Reserve during peace time and never expected to go to war.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)It was more about her Family Care Plan feel through (her mother had to take care of other elderly people in family, I think).
And there was no one else except foster care.
randome
(34,845 posts)I just wanted to say that I'm in favor of showing more breasts.
That's all. Carry on.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I think the two corporations are desperately fighting over table scraps that the Internet threw down on the floor.