> I wouldn't be too quick to congratulate Redbook on their breastfeeding
> cover.  I think they were being whimpy to have two covers- one not
> breastfeeding.
>
> I would love to hear what "Dr. Laura" would have to say about this issue.
>  I imagine it would go something like this: "Redbook was not worried
> about protraying a immoral, shack-up relationship to it's readers but
> were afraid the beautiful act of feeding and nurturing a baby would
> offend.  How ironic!"
>
Well, I heard Dr. Laura comment on the December Redbook cover today and
this is almost exactly what she said - nearly word-for-word! (Terri, you
must listen to her alot to know her so well!!) I also found it ironic
that the cover "banned" in homes was the one activity that families are
most likely to see "in the home." Certainly breastfeeding isn't seen in
society at large, which is the cover that made it to the more public
readers (newstands).

Dr. Laura also mentioned as how Redbook *used* to be a "family"
publication but has not been so for some time. The rationale of the
editors is truly curious. (Do you suppose this is actually all a
well-designed publicity stunt of Redbook's to try and regain reputation
as a family magazine?)

Katharine West
Sherman Oaks, CA