the new issue of Mothering magazine... - Page 2

[mamaofthree]

Hey, maybe we need to start sending in pictures of our kids and ourselves. :LOL Then they are sure to have Mothering mamas on the cover. LOL

H

[Earth Angel]

You know, speaking of stock photos, I LOVED the pic on the May/June issue so much I found the knitting pattern for that little purple hat... lo and behold, what pic did I see on the cover of the book Knit Baby Head and Toes? THE EXACT SAME PICTURE!

Awwww what a bummer, I always thought they went out and took these awesome pics.....I still think that baby in the hat i super cute!! Well, the kiddo on the cover of the last issue (with the sweet red curls) was taken by them cause her mamma works there....so thats good

I think mammaofthree has a great idea....I have TONS of cute pics of my kids and I"d LOVE to see them on the cover of the mag!!! Maybe they'll be open to reader submissions.

A friend gave me some of the older mags and I do agree they were more informative, less ads and sweeter pics......but I never fail to find something helpful in the mag and I enjoy supporting a small business such as mothering (and they still are really small, have good work practices (such as bringing babies to work) and regardless of their poor choice in 1 or 2 ads do support things I believe in.) Like this month....I just got my mag and skimmed it over....I really liked the article on the mamma hiking everyday with her kids, and Peggy's eidtorial was awesome!! Last month I thought the homeschool article was great!! Most mags have so much more in them that piss me off ya know.... I'll keep getting the mag till my kids are older, then I could see it not being as helpful for me anymore....

But I had to reply cause when I looked at the cover I thought what????? I never looked like that when I was pregnant....but she's still beautiful and some really lucky ladies do look like that when they are pregnant! At least she has a real belly right.....some pics of pregnant ladies that look that nice have fake bellies and arent' really pregnant at all.....I think that one REALLY sucks!!!

[owensmom]

I was hoping to see some of the complaint letters people wrote about the editorial and the ad...

[annettemarie]

Originally Posted by owensmom

I was hoping to see some of the complaint letters people wrote about the editorial and the ad...

Me too. :

[Aura_Kitten]

Originally Posted by owensmom

I was hoping to see some of the complaint letters people wrote about the editorial and the ad...

yes, that too.

i mean, about the issue itself, i can't honestly complain. the articles were fabulous. the bit about circumcision was more than i could have hoped for.

and that hiking mama is great.


but... the focus just seems to be changing.

[coleslaw]

motherofthree - that's Adina, our favorite TTC mod who has been TTC for quite some time and is now pregnant. Those of us who have followed her trials and tribulations are elated by her fantastic news!!

[JennyClaire]

Must admit I haven't read the whole issue yet.

The cover: She is on the "pretty" side of average, but I've seen plenty of pregnant women's bodies look like that (just in my Bradley class and pre-natal yoga)!

Breastfeeding article: I'm all for every women BFing her baby who possibly can, but let's be honest for goodness sake!
1) Breasts really CAN sag after BF an infant. Yes, obviously not as bad as in a braless 3rd world country, but let's admit that breasts will never be the same after we've nursed our child! Is it worth it? HELL YES!
2) For neither of my BF experiences were my breasts pre-pregnancy size after 6 months of breastfeeding!

Mothering in general: I picked up a copy of Baby Talk at the library the other day (shame on them for even having it)! There is no comparison. The advertising was appalling (formula, bottles, etc) and I actually read an article that told mothers to "feel no guilt" if they decided not to even try breastfeeding. What the ----! Yes, Mothering has become more palatable for the general public since the 1st issue I read in 1992, but the message is basically the same, and more women who would have been scared off will read it now. Mixed blessing, I suppose...

[Aura_Kitten]

yeah Jenny, that kind of irked me too.

my breasts are nowhere close to what they were 13 months ago. : and two other things:

1) breasts don't miraculously just stop leaking after three or four months. my daughter is 13 months old and every time i hear a baby cry i STILL soak my breastpads. so let's not tell everyone that it's rare or whatever. it happens, and EVERY OTHER MAMA i've EVER spoken to has said they keep on leaking throughout the first year, at LEAST.

2) the first weeks of breastfeeding can hurt like an SOB. seriously. even if everything is right, and perfect, and the latch is great. if you prepare women for NO pain then when they have ANY pain they're going to think they're doing something wrong ~ then when they find out they AREN'T they might get discouraged and want to stop, wean early, give formula, whatever, because they think they're just freaks and can't handle the pain, because they don't have enough information or support.

[Viola]

Originally Posted by mamaofthree

Hey, maybe we need to start sending in pictures of our kids and ourselves. :LOL Then they are sure to have Mothering mamas on the cover. LOL

H

I'd submit a photo. Don't know if they'd put a fat woman on the cover since I've never seen one in all the time I've subscribed. I'm about the same size as Peggy O, and she's on the inside, so maybe they figure that's enough. :LOL

[guestmama9924]

Originally Posted by JennyClaire

1) Breasts really CAN sag after BF an infant. Yes, obviously not as bad as in a braless 3rd world country, but let's admit that breasts will never be the same after we've nursed our child! Is it worth it? HELL YES!
...
Yes, Mothering has become more palatable for the general public since the 1st issue I read in 1992, but the message is basically the same, and more women who would have been scared off will read it now.

Yes, I would rather Mothering look a tad more appealing to the general population so that more ladies will read it and get some great info. I still hate stock photos... : But I do like that I can keep a stack of Mothering in my breastfeeding and CBE classes to give away and no one runs for the door
And I am sorry to ruin any boobie pity parties here :LOL but after nursing 2 kids for 4 years my breasts look exactly the same as when I was not pregnant. I hear moms say "4 months of nursing ruined me" and I am here to say that skin is going to age and sag no matter what, and every mama will have varying degrees based on weight, fitness, tone, and genes. My hips cannot say the same thing, but hey, I pushed 25 # of people and stuff out my hips!

[bayviewbill33]

I have not gotten past the beautiful preganant women on the cover. No offense but forget the articles!! :P j/k

[mamaofthree]

I was under the impression that breast sag whether you nurse or not. It was that you were pregnant that caused it to happen.

Thanks for the info on the smilie.

H

[Aura_Kitten]

we need to ban KeysMama. :LOL

[SEEPAE]

my breasts sagged just as much before I got pregnant and I was 16 when I got pregnant... if that says anything. Everyone in my family has saggy breasts, I cant think of a female in my bloodline that doesnt, no matter the age or if they had a child or not.

My breasts are actually smaller now than they were before I got pregnant, not by a lot, but I can tell. It may be because I got wider though, LOL

DS and I had a perfect BFing relationship IMO and the first week still hurt like hell. If you rub something wet and textured against any part of your body for 20 minutes 12 times a day it will get blistered. Why should your nipples be any different :LOL

[Missy]

more on vit D/rickets

From the research I've done, the only people who are likely to need supplementing are pregnant women who are dark skinned and cover who live up north (or someplace hot and stay in the A/C--there has been a rising prob among well-to-do women in the Middle East as well), or anyone living at an extremely high latitude, such as the northern parts of Canada and Alaska. The traditional diets of the indigenous peoples in those areas are rich in Vitamin D--and had no dairy, of course.

Just wanted to add that it's not quite that limited. One of the babies in our local hs group has been dxed with rickets. He's African American, but not **that** dark and we live in Virginia. He's a little over a year and still breastfeeding and simply wasn't getting enough vit D from the sun, even though his exposure would have been enough for a lighter-skinned child.

[guestmama9924]

Originally Posted by klothos

we need to ban KeysMama. :LOL

(*)v(*)

:LOL
I said they look the same, not particulary spectacular!! (.)(.)

[dharmama]

I have been distributing Mothering Magazine at my prenatal yoga classes for about 3 years now. I have to say I am THRILLED with the current issue -- my students are gobbling it up and talking about it with each other!

I also put a dozen or so Mothering Mags out at our birth network meeting. Most months I've had to carry some home after the meeting....this month the table was empty.

The current issue provides something that I can hand out -- something visually appealing -- that promotes many of the ideals I wish to share....co-sleeping, breastfeeding, no-circ....and then with all the ads and reports....cloth diapering, babywearing, homebirthing etc.

I have not gotten past the beautiful preganant women on the cover. No offense but forget the articles!!

But why? Why is a physically attractive pregnant woman something we can't get past?

I am a Mothering mama -- natural birthing, breastfeeding, cloth-diapering, co-sleeping -- but I'm pretty mainstream to look at. I don't think I'm as physically attractive as the woman on the cover, but with the right lighting (and a good photographer :LOL)...that could be me. And it most definitely could be many of the students who are coming to my prenatal class.

And you know what....a few issues back there was "one of us" on the cover (remember the "love your mama body" issue). The mama, Anna, was in my due date club...she was just a regular mama on the cover of Mothering Magazine. And ya know what....there was a big long thread ripping apart the cover and the photo and how it didn't look professional enough.

[Earth Angel]

I have not gotten past the beautiful preganant women on the cover. No offense but forget the articles!!



But why? Why is a physically attractive pregnant woman something we can't get past?

If I'm not mistaken I think this was a pappa that replied and I just took it as he was saying pregnant ladies are beautiful!...which if course he is MOST definately correct about

For me....it is hard to see people all done up but still supposed to look "normal" but really that is what our culture is all about. But, like I said....at least this woman was really pregnant....and I think it is cool that she looks as good as she does!! I really think it is disturbing to be a woman in our society, not to mention a pregnant one, and see ads of unpregnant women pretending to be pregnant to sell clothes to pregnant women KWIM????

I also think it is great dharmama that your clients/students are eating up this issue....very informative for pregnant women for sure!! And you know what....if the important messages containted within the covers get across to more people if they are presented this way then so be it....its better than these folks being given Parenting by someone else first right??? the broader the movement the better IMO


LOL on the boob thing....haven't read that article yet but it sounds intriguing from what you all have said though...it also sounds like there was a bit of misinformation in that article, and that is unfortunate.

[dharmama]

If I'm not mistaken I think this was a pappa that replied and I just took it as he was saying pregnant ladies are beautiful!...which if course he is MOST definately correct about

:LOL

[earthmama369]

Gotta say . . . I LOVE the new issue of Mothering. What a great all-in-one resource to give to a new family!

I had a couple reactions to reading this thread.

1. Wow. There are some high standards here. That's not a criticism; I think it's a great thing to hold what you love to high standards, especially when it's a resource of information. But if your only beef is one ad or one editorial, does it do more good to cancel your subscription or to communicate your concern? Even best friends, who both AP, won't agree on absolutely every single decision they make, and who'd want them to? In a diverse, healthy population of parents, there can and should be differences of opinion. It keeps us on our toes, makes us more likely to analyze and research our opinions, and reminds us that very little in the world is black and white. Likewise, when you present someone else's options (say, about circ) as black and white, right or wrong, even the best-meaning discussion can turn your intended audience off. Presented that way, it tells a person that if they disagree with you, they're wrong, which causes a lot of people to fear asking questions. If you put someone in a defensive position, they're more likely to label you a fanatic and tune out than open their minds. Like it or not, parents *do* have the choice to circ their sons or leave them intact. Recognizing that right of choice and presenting reasons to choose to keep their sons intact will get you much farther than taking an absolutist stance.

2. Magazines are EXPENSIVE to produce. Using stock photos appropriately is a valuable way to keep expenses down -- and keep your favorite magazine in business. I've worked as a periodicals specialist for Borders and as an editor for magazines like Art Bulletin. Did you know that 80% of new magazines fail within the first 2 years? Primarily due to lack of money. Licensing fees for the use of one font alone can cost up to $5,000. Full color spreads on glossy paper are not cheap. To publish one issue of a high quality magazine (and Mothering Magazine is a high quality magazine), with glossy pages, well-edited and researched articles, good design layout, and full color (and reasonably paid, satisfied employees with reasonable quality, working equipment) takes thousands of dollars. Advertising alone doesn't cover the costs.

Baby's awake, gotta run!