Jenny Knopinski snapped these photos of the new Safeway brand of baby care products, Mom to Mom. The branding of the product as “for moms, by moms” is another great example of the way that mothers are held responsible for childcare, while fathers are simultaneously excluded from the sphere altogether.
Comments 12
Kelly — July 17, 2010
Over a year ago my husband wrote a FB rant how offended he was at this (on behalf of himself as an involved father and of his partner as the assumed-kidcare role). Upside is, I think no one cared.
Meg — July 17, 2010
It's sad that fathers are given so little credit for the care that so many DO give. When I was little, my dad was the stay-at-home parent. It wasn't until I was much older that I realized how strange that must seem to some people and some of the problems he must have faced (especially in a time before "family" bathrooms -- not that those are common now, either).
I don't think it does any good for women, either, who are expected to be the primary care givers even when they work. Sure, we can do more than our grandmothers, but what if we just want to do things differently and not in addition to?
I believe that the more we are supportive of men as care givers, the better things will be for them, women, and children.
G — July 17, 2010
Anyone see this article from the NY Times a few weeks ago about parental leave in Sweden and how its affected assumptions about parental involvement (also, the gender pay gap)?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world/europe/10iht-sweden.html
Mike — July 17, 2010
It isn't just the invisible father; it is the invisible non-mommy caregiver.
I was primarily raised by my grandparents. Other people are raised by aunts, uncles, cousins, and other people (sometimes not even blood relatives). In this age where more and more people don't live in the traditional family, it is a little annoying to see a company use a brand name that assumes that a mother is the care giver. However, I guess they have the right to name their company whatever they want though.
Cat McKenney — July 18, 2010
So, maybe it's just me, but I had to stop for a moment and absorb the Mom to Mom logo. I had to think for a moment about what I was seeing, what they wanted me to be seeing. Ah, now I get it - 2 mommy birds sharing a little birdie knowledge over one of their wee ones in its shell.
But really, is the graphic clear? I studied graphic design in school and have worked with graphic design much of my adult life. What I've found is that you have to take a break after designing something and return to it with deliberately fresh eyes so that you can see any underlying, hidden imagery. Show it to somebody else, get another opinion. Sometimes designers unconsciously add weird imagery - sometimes your subconscious makes an unseen contribution.
When I see a graphic for the first time, this unconscious imagery is what hits me first. I don't think I'm alone.
What I saw when I first looked at this logo was the rear view of a human, on their knees, rear end up in the air, belly showing between their legs.
Male of female, well I'd go with female since the words below it refer to moms.
I had my husband, also a graphic designer, take a look. I asked him what he saw. Yup - same thing.
What's up with the logo?