Social Media Buzz

Malayalam magazine cover with breastfeeding model sparks a debate

The use of a model instead of a breastfeeding mother and the composition of the photo has evoked praise, outrage and reasoned criticism.

This month, the cover of Malayalam women’s magazine Grihalakshmi features the photograph of a woman breastfeeding an infant. “Mothers tell Kerala, ‘please don’t stare, we need to breastfeed,’” says the headline. The cover story is part of the magazine’s “breastfeed freely” campaign to mark International Women’s Day (March 8). It aims to encourage a public acceptance of women tend to their newborns openly.

In addition to prompting heated discussions, the magazine, published by the Mathrubhumi group, has become the subject of a court case. A Kerala advocate had moved a district court against Grihalakshmi under the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, according to reports on Friday. The complaint alleges that the photograph is “lascivious in nature, appealing to prurient interests and tends to degrade the dignity of womanhood”, said LiveLaw.

On social media, opinion has been sharply divided on the cover, with some people lauding it as a bold move by the magazine and others panning it as a publicity gimmick.

However, beyond mere outrage, there was also reasoned criticism against the magazine’s decision to use a model instead of a lactating mother on the cover. Some also pointed out that while ostensibly taking a progressive stance by encouraging free and open breastfeeding, the magazine reiterated patriarchal norms by choosing to adorn the model, Gilu Joseph, with a sindoor and a mangalsutra, both markers of a married woman.

Some social media users pointed out using a model did not take away from the message of the campaign. The News Minute spoke to people working for Grihalakshmi, who said that they chose Joseph for the cover because it would have been hard to find a breastfeeding mother willing to be photographed, even though many were happy to share their experiences with the magazine.

Twitter user Pallavi Rao pointed out that the way the cover had been shot to reitenforce the male gaze – the depiction of women from heterosexual male point of view. She argued that the photograph would have been more effective had the woman been looking at the infant or her surroundings, instead of looking determinedly into the camera.

Meanwhile, blogger Anjana Nayyar pointed out that the magazine did have a breastfeeding mother willing to be photographed, but she was relegated to the inside pages. “A genuine mother who genuinely believed in the cause. Stood for it. Campaigned for it. She was not enough to grace the cover? So what really was the genuineness of this cover picture and the loud message below it? Excuse me, Grihalakshmi, but in my mind, you have just lost all credibility and all good intention with this. You grabbed eyeballs.”

Addressing the controversy around the photograph, Joseph told The Indian Express that she had no regrets over her decision to pose for the cover. “When I had come across the ‘Breastfeed freely’ campaign, the makers were looking for anybody who would be willing to feature on the cover page,” she said. “I grabbed the opportunity because I have never been taught that breastfeeding is a sin and something to be covered up.”

Moncy Joseph, the editor in chief of Grihalaksmi, told The News Minute that their campaign wanted to end the taboo associated with feeding in public. “So many times, new mothers are helpless when their children cry of hunger, simply because they are unable to feed in public,” the editor said. “This has to change. Breastfeeding is a matter of pride, and women have to be able to feed their children freely and openly. You don’t need feeding rooms to feed your children. So we figured that having a discussion around this would be the most relevant thing to do this Women’s Day.”

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Do you really need to use that plastic straw?

The hazards of single-use plastic items, and what to use instead.

In June 2018, a distressed whale in Thailand made headlines around the world. After an autopsy it’s cause of death was determined to be more than 80 plastic bags it had ingested. The pictures caused great concern and brought into focus the urgency of the fight against single-use plastic. This term refers to use-and-throw plastic products that are designed for one-time use, such as takeaway spoons and forks, polythene bags styrofoam cups etc. In its report on single-use plastics, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described how single-use plastics have a far-reaching impact in the environment.

Dense quantity of plastic litter means sights such as the distressed whale in Thailand aren’t uncommon. Plastic products have been found in the airways and stomachs of hundreds of marine and land species. Plastic bags, especially, confuse turtles who mistake them for jellyfish - their food. They can even exacerbate health crises, such as a malarial outbreak, by clogging sewers and creating ideal conditions for vector-borne diseases to thrive. In 1988, poor drainage made worse by plastic clogging contributed to the devastating Bangladesh floods in which two-thirds of the country was submerged.

Plastic litter can, moreover, cause physiological harm. Burning plastic waste for cooking fuel and in open air pits releases harmful gases in the air, contributing to poor air quality especially in poorer countries where these practices are common. But plastic needn’t even be burned to cause physiological harm. The toxic chemical additives in the manufacturing process of plastics remain in animal tissue, which is then consumed by humans. These highly toxic and carcinogenic substances (benzene, styrene etc.) can cause damage to nervous systems, lungs and reproductive organs.

The European Commission recently released a list of top 10 single-use plastic items that it plans to ban in the near future. These items are ubiquitous as trash across the world’s beaches, even the pristine, seemingly untouched ones. Some of them, such as styrofoam cups, take up to a 1,000 years to photodegrade (the breakdown of substances by exposure to UV and infrared rays from sunlight), disintegrating into microplastics, another health hazard.

More than 60 countries have introduced levies and bans to discourage the use of single-use plastics. Morocco and Rwanda have emerged as inspiring success stories of such policies. Rwanda, in fact, is now among the cleanest countries on Earth. In India, Maharashtra became the 18th state to effect a ban on disposable plastic items in March 2018. Now India plans to replicate the decision on a national level, aiming to eliminate single-use plastics entirely by 2022. While government efforts are important to encourage industries to redesign their production methods, individuals too can take steps to minimise their consumption, and littering, of single-use plastics. Most of these actions are low on effort, but can cause a significant reduction in plastic waste in the environment, if the return of Olive Ridley turtles to a Mumbai beach are anything to go by.

To know more about the single-use plastics problem, visit Planet or Plastic portal, National Geographic’s multi-year effort to raise awareness about the global plastic trash crisis. From microplastics in cosmetics to haunting art on plastic pollution, Planet or Plastic is a comprehensive resource on the problem. You can take the pledge to reduce your use of single-use plastics, here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of National Geographic, and not by the Scroll editorial team.