TIME magazine just released its annual list of the Most Influential People in the World, and as these things go every year, there are some people who unquestionably should be on this list and others who we’re scratching our head over. After a lively and heated debate in the office this morning, I’ve come to the conclusion that influence means different things to different people — and perhaps TIME should revise this list to be called the most influential people of the week, month, or quarter, as some of these pop culture choices appear to be hot right now — as in April 18, 2013 right now — but hardly for the entire year.

But before we debate, let’s shout out the black folks who made the list:

• Jay-Z : Not only did the Jigga man make the list, he snagged one of the mag’s covers and New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, no less, wrote his profile. #Winning
  
• Valerie Jarrett
• Beyoncé
• Shonda Rhimes
• Lebron James
• Barack Obama
• Omotola Jalade Ekeinde
• Michelle Obama
• Joyce Banda
• Miguel
• Frank Ocean
• Joaquim Barbosa
• Mario Balotelli

And now for the interesting/confusing ones:

• Christina Aguilera: In the world? Perhaps the singing competition world, and I’m not even sure that assessment would be completely accurate. This seems like a wild card, we need one more influencer who’s  female addition. Can we say reaching?
• Jennifer Lawrence: Is it just me or is Jennifer Lawrence just the different white girl flavor of the year? You know the innocent, aloof blue-eyed girl who acts like she doesn’t really want to be famous but doesn’t mind hitting every red carpet to pick up an award. I’ve yet to understand her mass appeal…but I also haven’t seen ”Silver Linings Playbook” yet, maybe I’d understand her magnificence afterward.
• Justin Timberlake: I know Justin’s album just sold a bazillion copies and I have noticed a couple of big band, rat pack redux copy cats since he came back…OK so maybe he is influential. But the boy just came back after a 10-year hiatus. Can we see how much of the attention is based on consistently hot music as opposed to his hyped up return to music. This just seems a bit premature.
• Miguel: I’m not denying Miguel’s artistic prowess, but the reality is on a mass level people just don’t know who he is. Remember Kelly Clarkson at the Grammys? Plus Miguel just said so himself on The Breakfast Club, acknowledging not enough people are hip to who he is yet. I feel like someone who just got word of who Miguel is last month thought, “yeah, let’s add this guy.” At the end of the day this is still a great look for him though.

Who’s missing?

• Hello, Hillary Clinton! The former U.S. Secretary of State hasn’t sat down since leaving her latest post, and everyone knows she’s gearing up to run for president in 2013. She’s got a heavy influence right now.
• Rihanna: I’m not really mad she wasn’t on the list, but with all the accolades the great people of Europe have just bestowed upon her (the new Princess Diana?), TIME might be slipping by not acknowledging her global influence.

Check out the full list of influential people here. Who would you add or remove?

Source: Time.com

You already know that Barack loves the kids. (No disrespect, we know he’s the president but I needed one name here.) In their write up as Person of the Year, Time Magazine included this picture from October 26, of the president  pretending to be trapped by the child of a White House staffer, who just so happened to be dressed as Spiderman.

It’s adorable, no?

So tell us what’s being said in the photo? What is this little boy thinking or saying and what’s on the president’s mind?

TIME magazine has everybody talking about it’s latest cover—and I do mean everybody. Not only is the idea of prolonged breastfeeding and the umbrella topic of “attached parenting” that the cover story explores a very sensitive issue, the art that goes along with it is simply too striking of an image for many to digest.

What’s depicted is Jamie Lynne Grumet, a 26-year-old stay-at-home mom, breastfeeding her 4-year-old son who is huge for his age. Without even delving into the hot-button issue portrayed, responses to the cover can pretty much be summed up with one resounding question, was this necessary? From charges that the the cover exploits breastfeeding rather than celebrates it, to the claim that it’s launching a mommy war, to concerns about how this child will feel once he’s old enough to comprehend the cover (which is an issue his mother will have to answer to not TIME), most are in the park of believing the magazine is trying to come off as supportive of attached parenting while really poking fun at the mother’s on the newsstand.

The so-called mommy war concern is a legitimate one—not so much because of the picture but because of the headline, “are you mommy enough?” That question makes me think of the never-ending battle between stay-at-home and working mothers and how each side tends to think they’re the stronger parent for the lifestyle they’ve chosen as mothers. Suggesting mothers who breastfeed their kids well beyond the typical nursing years somehow goes above and beyond the call of duty is encouraging to women who do it and offensive to others who don’t feel the need to attach to their kids in this way.

Posing in this way also somewhat adds to the argument many have that nursing a child this old is just downright inappropriate. To see children sucking on their mother’s breast for no reason in the photo shoot conjures up ideas in observer’s heads about this practice being an indecent or lewd act, which some already feels it is, and this cover doesn’t do much to distract from that. Reading the women’s stories though, it’s easy to see why they don’t have a problem being open about their attachment style of parenting. Grumet was actually breastfed until the time she was six and when she was in the process of adopting Aman, the son seen with her in the photo, she became pregnant. By the time the adoption was final, she was also able to begin breastfeeding Aman.

“Being able to give him that [comfort] with the trauma that he faced was really, really important to me,” she told TIME. “But I didn’t realize how much it would help my attachment to him. When his English improved, because the connection was there, he didn’t do it as much. So now he’ll do it maybe once a month.”

As far as naysayers to the practice, many more of which will likely come out after seeing this cover article, Grumet says she’s secure in her parenting style.

“The[re] are people who tell me they’re going to call social services on me or that it’s child molestation. I really don’t think I can reason with those people. But as far as someone who says they’re uncomfortable with this, I don’t think it’s wrong to admit this. But people have to realize this is biologically normal. It’s not socially normal. The more people see it, the more it’ll become normal in our culture. That’s what I’m hoping. I want people to see it.

“There seems to be a war going on between conventional parenting and attachment parenting, and that’s what I want to avoid. I want everyone to be encouraging. We’re not on opposing teams. We all need to be encouraging to each other, and I don’t think we’re doing a very good job at that.”

This cover probably won’t help that effort.

What do you think about the TIME’s cover? Do you think it will further divide people on this issue or help them see it in a new light?

Brande Victorian is a blogger and culture writer in New York City. Follower her on Twitter at @be_vic.

More on Madame Noire!

• Corporate Curls: The Struggle To Wear My Natural Hair As a TV Reporter”
• Hair Did! Celebs With A Fab Wig and Weave Game
• Don’t Fight It: Why It’s OK To Be Attracted to Other People
• Girl Bye: Tami Roman Has The Nerve To Say She’s Being Bullied By ‘BBW’ Viewers
• Watch What You Say About Black Studies: Blogger Fired For Questioning Scholars’ Legitimacy
• “How Far Can Swag Take You? An Analysis of the Rick Ross Appeal”
• Access Denied: 7 Things That Will Get A Guy Fake Digits

Source: DailyMail

There’s a huge difference between a little girl dressing up as a boy and a little boy believing he is actually a girl, and according to three reports in the journal pediatrics, and increasing number of kids are falling into the latter category.

Gender identity disorder is the psychiatric diagnosis these kids are often labeled with, but doctors like Norman Spack, author of the reports and director of one of the nation’s first gender identity medical clinics at Children’s Hospital Boston, believe in emerging research that suggests these kids may have brain differences more similar to the opposite sex. Spack told Time magazine 1 in 10,000 children may have this condition.

An 8-year-old patient in Los Angeles is discussed heavily in the report. The child, who was born a girl, reportedly announced that she was a boy at 18 months and has stuck with that thinking ever since. The family is now waiting for the first signs of puberty to begin treatment and the mother says when her child found out they could give drugs to block breast development, “he was so excited.”

According to Spack, if kids start drug treatments early they’ll more easily pass for the opposite sex and will require less dramatic treatments later. He also says the drugs used by the clinics, which are reversible, are approved for delaying puberty in kids who start maturing too soon. The idea, he says, is to give children time to mature emotionally and make sure they want to proceed with a permanent sex change. According to him, only 1 of the 97 children discussed in the report opted out of permanent treatment.

But this work is not without ethical concerns. Dr. Margaret Moon, a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ bioethics committee, said the motives of kids and their parents need to be examined before beginning treatment in patients under the age of 18. She says some kids may get a psychiatric diagnosis when they are just uncomfortable with narrowly defined gender roles; or others who are gay may be coerced into treatment by parents who are more comfortable with a sex change than having a homosexual child.

But while she says receiving sex-change treatment too young can be harmful, others think not having treatment is more harmful, citing self-destructive behaviors the kids often develop such as cutting and suicide attempts, not to mention the stress and depression. Boston Hospital seems to prove that this service is one both gender-questioning kids and their parents want. Since opening it’s gender service management clinic in 2007, they’ve seen a four-fold increase in patients, and according to Spack:

“If you open the doors, these are the kids who come. They’re out there. They’re in your practices.”

What do you think about gender identity disorder? What age do you think is too young to begin gender reassignment therapy?

Brande Victorian is a blogger and culture writer in New York City. Follower her on Twitter at @be_vic.

More on Madame Noire!

• True Life: I Knew He Wasn’t Into Me When…
• Terrence Howard Says His Wife Is Ruining His Career
• Why Are You Hiding Your Boos? Celeb Women Who Are Always Acting Single
• Dealing With Drama?: How To Know When It’s Time To Go
• Does the Academy of Motion Pictures Need Affirmative Action?
• Friends & Lovers: What To Avoid When Introducing Your Guy To Your Girls
• Wild Thang: African Print-Inspired Fashions for Head to Toe
• Why Did I Get Married?: The Trouble With Marrying Too Young

Is your child addicted to cereal and junk food…commercials? They’re peppered throughout children’s programming these days. According to statistics from Yale’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, childhood breakfast favorites like Cocoa Puffs, Fruity Pebbles and Cinnamon Toast Crunch have some of the most aggressive marketing tactics to lure kids from their eye-catching, crispy, crunchy commercials right into their tummies.

Read the rest of this entry »

TIME Magazine select 100 most influential people in the world for their annual list.

Read More…