Facebook has been getting a lot of heat in the media recently about banning pictures of women breastfeeding because it is deemed "obscene" by the sites policies for posting images.
Blink.
Ok, all problems with social networking media aside, how is an intimate moment between a mother and her child, intended for the mom's list of friends and family, who she has presumably approved or been approved by, obscene? And why the HELL are people complaining about it? For example, the story connected to the video above is here .
Although some of the commenters are coming from an honest place, others are demonstrating their sheer disgust at a woman breastfeeding. It's really an eye opening series of comments.
But on to my point. Facebook doesn't say boo when a man posts a picture of himself coming out of a swimming pool shirtless. I see nipples, I see France, I see gender discrimination on Facebook.
The same people commenting about these breastfeeding moms being, and I shit you not, "attention whores", don't say a word about young, hot, drunk girls posting pictures of their weekend shenanigans. Why isn't that offensive, or attention seeking, hmmmmm? Could it be because nipples (and hot girls) are only there for your enjoyment, and god forbid we entertain the thought of their FUNCTION? Just a thought.
Now I am not saying that everyone should run out, make a nipple collage, and post it to Facebook. What I am saying is that if you want to censor nipples, you have to do it for men and women alike. Fine with me, as long as we play fair.
Oh wait, I forgot the classic argument. Men's nipples aren't sexy or erotic, they're normal, right? Says who? That only presumes that women are not sexually aroused by images of men. Ladies, thoughts?
It seems to me that we are backtracking a few decades here by even entertaining the debate that breastfeeding on Facebook is somehow obscene when we already allow women to do it in public. Here's a thought; don't look if you don't like it. It works for me and Fox News.
Whatever comes of this art project challenging Facebook, it goes without saying that Nipplegate ceases to go away...kind of like women, their babies, and their nipples.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Facebook War Against Nipples.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11246
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
I don't think this should be characterized as "Facebook's" anything. Would any network television show nipples on a woman breastfeeding? No. Would any other sort of mainstream media? No. This isn't just Facebook arbitrarily making up new cultural standards. These standards have long, long been in place. They may be fucked up, and it may be worthy to examine and criticize the standards, but I don't see how Facebook is doing things any differently than any other social institution attempting to cater to a majority audience.
And if we're going to talk about forgoing censorship of anything based on the idea that it's their "private" pictures for them and their friends, then why should Facebook censor anything? Why not just allow all forms of nudity or pornography or anything else that people want to put up for their specific group?
Facebook is just drawing the line in the same place as every other media outlet designed for mass consumption. I don't see why it's surprising.
"Facebook is just drawing the line in the same place as every other media outlet designed for mass consumption. I don't see why it's surprising."
because you're being willfully clueless or because you're a sexist trying to justify sexism?
I'm glad that you didn't even try to defend your reasoning and just proceeded directly to the ad hominem. It saved us both some time.
Because calling out a sexist for being sexist is an "ad hominem attack" as opposed to sheer observation of the truth.
From wikipedia: "Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem as abusive, sexist, racist, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument."
Just sayin
But calling someone who says sexist things, or behaves in a sexist manner a sexist is not in and of itself an ad hominem. However, if you're debating a completely unrelated topic, and you question the person's argument because s/he is sexist, then that is an ad hominem.
The discussion is not about doubleb's character or his commitment to feminism. If he makes an *argument* that is sexist, that is relevent. Whether or not *he* is sexist is completely beside the point.
Maybe you should review the earlier comments. Gypsy Lee suggested that Doubleb didn't find Facebook's actions surprising because he's either willfully ignorant or sexist. He responded that this was an ad hominem. Meenecat then said that simply noting that somebody is sexist based on their words or behavior is not making an ad hominem. And she's correct. Ad hominem is a technical term referring to argumentation. If I claim that your argument is no good because you're an asshole, this is an ad hominem. Just calling you an asshole is not. Do you see the difference? In one case I'm just engaging in name-calling, which isn't very nice but does not amount to a logical fallacy. In the other case I'm refusing to address or respond to your argument, but attacking you personally instead.
And that wikipedia definition is kind of weird and poorly written.
"because you're being willfully clueless or because you're a sexist trying to justify sexism?"
The "because" sort of made me think that she was saying I only held the position because I was sexist. That implied that it must be a sexist position if it was related to me being sexist. Which then implied that I was sexist for holding it. It's kind of circular too now that I think about it.
And she didn't give any reason for why Facebook should be held to different standards than society at large. She just sort of said, well you're a sexist so you would say that. How about giving some REASONS? That have to do with either Facebook or society? Or nipples, I guess.
Um, yeah, tammibutcher, She already provided the reason for calling doubleb and his comment sexist - because he was trying to justify a sexist policy with sexist reasons...the policy in question is one that likens women breast feeding to "obscenity" simply because of how men define women's bodies as being equivalent to sex (i.e. men say "sex = women's bodies" therefore it is) as opposed how women define their own bodies (which in this case would be along the lines of "breasts used for feeding = baby eating" NOT obscenity). If you are having trouble seeing why this policy is sexist, read some of the comments in this thread and talk to some breastfeeding moms that have been told they are being "obscene" when feeding their baby.
Come now. Let's be real. Facebook, MySpace, and other social networking sites are perfectly fine with women's nipples, as long as they're being displayed for the viewing pleasure of heterosexual males. Of course, in most of the advertisements that they plaster all over my (male) partner's page, these nipples are covered in sheer fabric but still clearly visible. But since they're intended for men, and not babies, they're great. But as everyone knows, breasts are not intended for babies, and using them this way is nasty and inappropriate. It's much better for them to be ingesting the corn syrup and melamine that's so necessary to their survival via formula in BPA-ridden bottles. It's a much healthier choice. And then the men can still own the titties, so everyone's happy.
The only way to change the fucked up attitudes of your culture is to advocate for change and confront sexist attitudes everywhere you encounter them. Why should Facebook get a free pass?
I'm not arguing at all with the point. I agree with everything substantive. Ready my post again but without the immediate suspicion. I said that I agree with criticizing this, all I disagree with is characterizing it as "Facebook's" war as though it's not a larger cultural problem. It's not like this is something new. It's something that is and has been happening in many other places for much longer than Facebook has even existed.
In other news, I am also skeptical of the theory that men are somehow worried about how breasts are used and that that is responsible for the social attitude of breastfeeding. I know just as many women who, for whatever reason, are just as grossed out by it as men. I think that reaction is an odd phenomenon, but I have never heard or seen anything that would make me suspect that men are just secretly worried about breast ownership. I am honestly asking, what makes you think that that is what's happening?
I don't think it's just the men who are freaked out about it, although I've never met a woman who was. But in a patriarchal culture women's bodies are viewed as belonging to teh menz, and any public display of non-sexual intimacy involving a woman's body, but not a man, is troubling to individuals of either gender who hold these patriarchal attitudes. When my grandma graduated from college and moved from the midwest to SF for a job, she was shocked and horrified by public affections between lesbians. She was a product of her culture.
I think that last sentence hits it on the head. I just don't think the reaction is based on anything logical at this point. It's just "one of those things" that people are trained to react to, and so they do. I'd say that equal numbers of men and women I know have a negative reaction to it. And I would say it correlates strongly with how generally intelligent and self-reflective they are.
Ok, so let's move forward pretending that I titled the article "Society's War on Nipples".
How do you always manage to say exactly what I'm thinking? Amazing.
I'll just add a thought which says the exact same thing in different words: Just because something is "the norm", that doesn't make it right.
Furthermore, I'm pretty confident I've seen breastfeeding nipples on less conservative news outlets. If we don't advocate for change on a social networking site (Note: NOT a 'media outlet') which is supposed to be about ourselves and our lives, part of which may be breastfeeding, then we are missing an opportunity to take back control of our own bodies because, let's face it, our nipples are OURS as much as a man's nipple is his. We should be able to show our nipples on our own profile and in our own photo gallery! Furthermore, Facebook has a lot of controls for regulating who can see your profile and certain photos, so if a woman feels that she doesn't want random people looking at her nipples, she can specify exactly who can (and cannot) see them.
In other words, comparing a multi-user, multi-layer personalised profile-based social networking site like Facebook to a single-layer media outlet like Fox News is extremely fallacious. They are completely disanalagous.
In other words, comparing a multi-user, multi-layer personalised profile-based social networking site like Facebook to a single-layer media outlet like Fox News is extremely fallacious. They are completely disanalagous.
Nice.
They are analogous to the extent that they are attempting to attract the largest possible user base for financial gain, and that they suspect the way to do that is to offend as few people as possible. That informs almost all of both of their respective decisions, and is the consideration that informs this reaction.
Sorry, I saw logic-speak so I had to take whatever side Rachel wasn't taking.
I saw logic-speak so I had to take whatever side Rachel wasn't taking
Oh, doubleb, when have you ever won at this? =)
Actually, she's right. Argument from analogy is a somewhat iffy form of argumentation to begin with, and if the two things being compared aren't very, very similar, then the argument is pretty weak (not "invalid" since arguments from analogy are inductive). The less similarity, the weaker the argument...
Only by facing a superior opponent do I truly learn.
Actually it's for heterosexual men over 18. That makes a world of difference. I disagree with censoring breast feeding since I fail to see how it is a suggestive or sexual act but going topless for purpose of going topless is sexual whether the woman displaying her breasts has the brains to realize it or not.
Yes, many women simply lack the brains to understand the signification that their culture has assigned to their body parts.
Or perhaps they have the brains (uterus notwithstanding) and simply choose to reject sexist cultural norms and are using subversive actions to challenege/gradually change these attitudes.
This is how;
Facebook removes pictures of women breastfeeding because nipples are "obscene", and yet does not remove pictures of men's nipples.
Generall, men can walk around shirtless in public without reprimand, and women can breastfeed legally in public, which kind of indicates that cultural standards aren't so uncomfortable with the odd nip.
Facebook is saying that is obscene because it is a nipple, but implying that only women's nipples are obscene (even when exposed in the least sexual way) by not holding men to the same standard. That's how.
But in fact, those nipples are only obscene when they're being displayed for something other than male viewing pleasure. If I posted a picture of myself in a sexy pose wearing the sheerest of shirts that showed my nipples right through the fabric, Facebook would be perfectly fine with it. Because female breasts are intended for male heterosexual pleasure, not for producing baby's milk. Babies should only be fed the corn syrup and melamine mix that we like to call formula. 'Cause that's not gross (or unhealthy) at all.
And since when can you see a woman's nipple when a child is nursing? Sounds like an extreme case of not latching on right.
While I do agree that Facebook is being completely unreasonable, the fact that they do not have problems with womens' barely covered breasts is not entirely true.
I have seen a few cases where young women were asked by Facebook to removed their profile pictures (I specify profile pictures here) because other users had reported them as offense due to the overly sexual nature of the photos.
If their policy says 'no bare boobs' then that's what it means and if someone doesn't like it then it is probably best not to sign up for Facebook. That would include Girls Gone Wild, breastfeeding topless mothers, and even some women in National Geographic magazine. The context isn't the issue according to their policy. I get annoyed with people signing up and accepting the rules and regulations and then getting upset when they are expected to follow rules they themselves agreed to.
Other than that I really don't care what people choose to share with others but I am perplexed about why it seems to be so important to some people that others see them unclothed feeding their kids. I'm really not even sure why they think anyone else would WANT to see that if not for voyeurism. On the one hand it's supposed to be this 'intimate' moment between a mother an her child and on the other it is this totally natural function that no one should bat an eye over.
Respectfully,
What are you talking about? Truly, what?
What gave you the idea that women "want" others to look at their breasts while they're breastfeeding?
You wrote an entire paragraph linking breast-feeding to voyeurism. Do you see how this reflects on you, and not on the women feeding their young?
What gave me the idea that people want other people to look at them while they breastfeed? Ummm, I don't know, maybe it has to do with them actually, you know, posting PICTURES of it on their Facebook page. I can't speak for you but I generally don't post pics of myself on the web unless there is some intention for others to look at them. What I was saying in my post is 'why' would someone think that other people would even want to watch them breastfeed, prompting them to post those pictures in the first place? I don't see how that wasn't clear.
I suggest you go back and read your second paragraph. You use of the word "unclothed" reveals the ultimate focus. You don't need that qualifier in there unless you view breastfeeding as being more about the [unclothed] breast than about the feeding.
YOUR focus may be on the naked breast. For most mothers I know, it's on the child, and the child's act of feeding. As such, when a woman posts a pic for her friends and family, it's showcasing the BABY and the BABY EATING. The breast is simply its means of getting food. You, on the other hand. persist in seeing it as an act of "voyeurism," thus wedding it to the sexual.
Exactly, right Okra - it's doubled and crumpet who insist on tying the breast to a sexual purpose (as defined by the hetero-male norm) for their own selfish purposes...as opposed to it's actual purpose, which is, for feeding the baby. Mothers who post pictures for their friends and family are NOT posting pictures of "OMG! everyone look a my breasts! sex! sex! sex!" (as you are projecting onto images), these mothers are posting pictures of "OMG, isn't s(he) cute/sweet/beautiful!" referring to the baby feeding.
If either of you are capable of looking at a baby feeding with it's mother without constantly sexualizing these images, you would realize the the face of a peacefully feeding baby is quite remarkable and beautiful and certainly worth being captured in film. Frankly, it's disgusting that you and others would constantly try to sexualize such an image for your own selfish enjoyment.
I am a hetero female and derive no sexual enjoyment from seeing another woman's boob in any context. Nudity itself doesn't bother me either.
However, I do take issue with people who keep insisting that breasts exist for the purpose of feeding children and totally ignore the fact that our breasts have multiple functions. Yours may be used for baby feeding but mine are not. Before a woman had children what were her boobs used for? What about after you are through having children, then what? Do they just become useless appendages or to they continue to perform a sexual function for attracting a mate or being a source of sexual pleasure (and not necessarily for a man). Saying that breasts are for feeding is like saying a penis is for urinating. Sure it is but it's also used for sexual pleasure, procreation, and unfortunately sometimes as a tool for sexual assault. Breasts have more than one purpose and ignoring that is just as bad as the people who think that boobs are just for fun and sex and not for feeding infants. It's because they have a dual function that there will be issues with any form of feeding a child that involves nudity.
I admit I don't get why some people need to romanticize breastfeeding as some beautiful, spiritual act when really all it is is eating. We all eat and the mere act of consuming food doesn't need to be elevated to etheral levels just because it is a baby doing it.
If you truly see it as "just eating," as do most breastfeeders themselves and medical professionals, than you wouldn't describe a woman's posting of a picture of a baby eating as "voyerism."
Nobody here has mentioned anything about ethereal beauty. If they have, I certainly would disagree with them. Warm and fuzzy feelings may accrue during the act itself, but the act in of itself is not necessarily warm and fuzzy.
Next point: Penis to Vagina, NOT Penis to Breast, is the correct correspondence.
Here, male breast to female breast is the correct correspondence.
Now, please make your argument again, this time comparing male and female breasts.
I can compare anything I want. How about we look at it as comparing body parts with multiple functions to other body parts with multiple functions because most of our body parts do have multiple purposes. You were being very particular and I was referring to this in a more generalized way.
As far as responding to the ponts made here, we've gotten so tangential with all the finger pointing that I can't even recall what these so-called points are.
When I said voyeurism it was in the context of wondering, really, why someone would think that other people want to see them feed their baby in a way that happens to involve them being completely topless (because the pics I saw were indeed that way, not a woman with her shirt lifted up and a baby latched on). Honestly, no one outside your immediate family and possibly your pediatrician is as interested in your baby as you are. It's also quite possible that there would be people who saw those pictures and viewed them voyeuristically even though that seems twisted. For some folks, especially men (yep, I generalized) tits are tits and when they see them they think of sex. Oh well.
Who here has claimed that the sole purpose of breasts is feeding babies? Noting that this is one of their natural functions is not claiming that this is all they're good for. But when you're defending the practice of breastfeeding against people who say it's disgusting and unnatural and compare it to shitting, one good response is to point out that it is not unnatural at all. When you have a baby your breasts naturally produce milk. That's just how it works regardless of whether you choose to feed your child that way, or of how you personally view your breasts. As such, breastfeeding is a natural process. The view that a natural function of breasts is breastfeeding is at least as valid as viewing breasts as existing for the sole purpose of looking good to males and being stroked and enjoyed by them.
And maybe breastfeeding doesn't seem like a valuable experience to you, but why should that mean that the intimacy and bonding involved can't be valuable to others? It's a puzzling attitude.
I'm not really surprised that you haven't read any of my comments before talking about what I said, or what I think, or what I'm really doing; but if you'll go ahead and actually read them, you'll notice that I haven't mentioned anything about sexualizing this at all. And in fact, I don' think this has anything to do with sexuality at all. And I agree with you that there's nothing wrong with people viewing this act in a loving and beautiful way.
But please, don't let my actual thoughts or statements get in the way of you telling me how sexist and misogynistic I really am.
it's just easier for you to argue that I didn't read your comment than recognize the arguments that other's here are making against this sexist policy on Facebook:
-----
DOUBLEB SAID:
"And if we're going to talk about forgoing censorship of anything based on the idea that it's their "private" pictures for them and their friends, then why should Facebook censor anything? Why not just allow all forms of nudity or pornography or anything else that people want to put up for their specific group?
Facebook is just drawing the line in the same place as every other media outlet designed for mass consumption. I don't see why it's surprising. "
-------
Here you are likening pictures of breastfeeding to all forms of nudity and pornography and "anything else that people want to put up"...So as I said again, you are sexualizing parts of a women's body according to the male sexual norm...not to mention, you also mention these "cultural standards" in your own previous comments.
Doubleb, you have a habit of stating something in your comment and then denying that you said it in another comment. Here you deny that you had been defining women's breasts by hetero-male standards - something which you clearly did.
"Exactly, right Okra - it's doubled and crumpet who insist on tying the breast to a sexual purpose (as defined by the hetero-male norm) for their own selfish purposes...as opposed to it's actual purpose, which is, for feeding the baby."
iirc, the sexual purpose is ALSO an actual purpose, that's likely why human breasts are so much bigger than they need to be merely to produce milk (compare a woman's breasts to the breasts of other female primates, for example)...
You have mischarachterized my statement. This isn't about denying that breasts can have a sexual purpose. It's about women being denied the right to define how they see their own breasts - If a woman decides that her breast has a sexual purpose, fine, it's her right. If a women wants to breast feed in public and or post pictures of her baby feeding, and define her breasts as something that is used for the purpose something other than sex, that is fine too, that is her right.
I am not arguing that breasts can never be sexual, I'm arguing that society has no right to force a definition on a women's breasts and say that because she is simply showing her breasts, that she is automatically being "sexual"-whether the individual women sees her breasts her as sexual or not. Society by hetero-sexual male definition, has no right to force a definition on her, nor to they have a right to sexualize women's breasts when the women themselves do not want to be sexualized.
I used the word 'unclothed' because I have actually seen some of the photos that were the subject of this conflict and in one of the pictures the woman was topless/nude in the bathtub with her kid (although only the breasts were visible).
That's fine and all. Most people understand implicitly that "breastfeeding" involves some degree of unclothededness.
But I respect your assertion that you meant nothing by the word.
Still,
Please respond to the points both I and meneecat have made.
Right, except the pictures in question are only available to the poster's friends and family.
I must agree with Crumpet. This whole discussion is about what people can put on the internet for every other person in the world to see.
Um, are you familiar with internet porn?
I am confused.
Oh, if you're suggesting that people already do that, my comment was in response to Okra's response to Crumpet; which suggested that this wasn't about women wanting other people to see their breasts while breast feeding. That sentence was too complicated but I don't think I can fix it without making it much longer. Basically, if you track where my comment came from it will make more sense.
This whole discussion is about what people can put on the internet for every other person in the world to see.
My comment concerning porn was in response to this. There are plenty of nipples clearly visible all over the internet. And they're thought to be wonderful because they're there for hetero male viewing, not for babies.
Okra was saying that these women didn't "want" other people to see. I was just pointing out that they obviously did "want" other people to see, because that was the whole issue.
On Facebook you can control who sees your pics, and the person in question made the pics available to only her friends and family, as stated in the OP.
"What gave you the idea that women "want" others to look at their breasts while they're breastfeeding?"
Friends and family would be "others". It's probably always a good assumption that I mean everything I say in the most limited way possible.
Just for context, Crumpet thinks that people who advocate breast feeding are "tit nazis," so I wouldn't expect any reasonable response to this post out of him/her.
That is a bold-faced lie. I have never said any such thing. In any criticism I have made regarding breastfeeding I have been very particular to specify that I reserve the term 'tit nazi' for those 'beat you over the head and call you a bad mother for not breastfeeding because you obviously don't want what's best for your baby' types of people. They exist and if you don't believe me just ask any mother you know who bottle feeds whether or not she has ever been subjected to guilt inducing tactics by some stranger who feels they have a right to know why she is feeding from a bottle and not a breast. I'm only one person and I've personally witnessed this happen to a friend of mine twice in the past 2 months. If you can find anything different where I called all or even most breast feeding advocates 'tit nazis' I'd like to see it. Otherwise it is disingenous for you to twist my words around to suit yourself just because you disagree with some of my views on things.
Um, the correct phrase is actually "bald-faced."
And this is the post I was referring to, in which you went off about the inappropriate role of breastfeeding in our "baby worshipping culture."
Okay then it's a bald-faced lie. Is that better?
I read the post and still do not see where I called breast feeding women 'tit nazis'. It's still pretty clear in that post that I was referring to a subset of people with particularly diligent behaviors who are often very extreme in getting their views across.
And so what if I expressed some negative thoughts about a 'baby worshipping culture'? Not everyone's life revolves around children and feminism is not necessarily synonymous with mommyism and that's not the subject of this community posting anyway.
You can play 'gotcha' with me all you want but I'm not in the habit of spending my time actually looking for things to get offended about. It is not necessary for me to find a victim angle in everything because that is not how I define myself. People can argue about semantics until they are blue in the face but I don't see the reward in that. But when all you have is a hammer everything starts looking like a nail I guess.
Crumpet, I respect the defense you've offered of your opinions even though I disagree with most of your points.
However, I think it's very sad and quite telling that you've bought hook, line and sinker into the idea that speaking out about problems in society is "playing the victim."
I see speaking up so very differently than you.
To me, seeing an issue and speaking up about it and out against it is the anti-victim. It's a form of strength. I see that the media and people around me sexually fetishize the breast (and that misguided people, many of whom are not feminists, over-maternalize the female body in general), and I speak up about it.
You call it victimhood.
I call it analysis and activism.
Potato, pot-ah-to.
I also believe in activism but I do indeed feel that there is this perception by some that there is some hidden meaning in everything. For example, I really didn't see the big fuss about that article in HuffPost about men napping as being some sort of evidence of pervasive sexism. You know what? Sometimes men and women really are different and not just the exact same beings with different parts between our legs. If you read the comments to the article you would see many people who identify with the topic in their own lives. Some stereotypes have a lot of reality to them and they aren't always inherently mean or oppressive. I do abhor a victim mentality that supports the idea that no matter what we do or what role we play in our own dysfunction it is always the fault of someone else. It seems incompatible to align that view with the assertion that we women should be in more positions of power and leadership. If we are these helpless vessels who can't help but succumb to media imagery and we don't have the guts to stand up to some perv at work who grabs our ass, then how can we expect anyone to take us seriously as equals much less as leaders?
Yes, we need to examine the power of words and the implications of seemingly harmless generalizations of gender norms. However, there is not always some sexist boogeyman hiding behind every corner and every act of acknowledging any difference between men and women is not akin to promoting sexist ideas.
But your comment shows that you completely missed the point of that post. Gender essentialism is a powerful tool in maintaining hierarchical social structures and attitudes. Do you feel that your uterus makes you constantly obsess about the cleanliness of your house and how much of a lazy bastard your husband is? Probably not, and rightfully so. But this is the problem with gender essentialism - it claims that all of our socially constructed gender roles and characteristics are set by our biology and therefore immutable, making feminism silly and irrelevant at best.
Right, that's why I didn't say you called breastfeeding people tit nazis. I correctly noted that you referred to breastfeeding advocates as tit nazis. I tend to remember when somebody expresses anti-breastfeeding sentiments in order to avoid wasting my time on them in subsequent threads on the topic.
I did not even refer to all or even most bf advocates as tit nazis. I specifically referred to those who engage in certain behaviors, like attacking non-bf women and questioning their love for their kids which I think is very extreme.
And you honestly don't get that using "nazi" in this context (or any non-genocide-related context) is inapporpriate? Wow. Just...wow.
I didn't say we had to forego censorship, I said that men and women must be held to the same standards if nipples (or anything else) are to be banned. That also goes for mainstream TV in my opinion.
This is easy. No pictures of men breastfeeding.
I believe it was the fact that the nipple was showing that was so offensive to Facebook. So, no shirtless men anymore. Nipples are purely sexual and therefore offensive.
I already suggested that in this thread.
And nothing of value was lost.
There actually was an attempt to censor an ad that showed a man "attempting" to breastfeed (with nipple exposed). You can see it here:
http://www.shouldthisbecensored.com/
But why is my nipple different from a man's, other than the fact that it's attached to more fat and glands than theirs? All I'm sayin is that if as a community they want to ban nipples (I think they define it based on the visual of the areola) they have to do so for both genders. A nipple is a nipple is a nipple.
In the context of our societal norms regarding nudity that is not the case. Sure, let's advocate for different norms if we believe in that but womens' breasts have a sexual function and sexual status that mens' nipples do not. that is why there is a double standard.
So men's nipples aren't sexual at all? Ever?
Sure, they can be but so can feet or any other body part. I wasn't defending the double standard just saying one way it came to be.
That's precisely what we're doing here: discussing the issues at play and ADVOCATING for a change in social norms.
YOu claim, below, to "not defend the double standard."
Then stop defending Facebook's use of the double standard. Get on the wagon, partner. Join us in our advocacy.
I'm defending the right of a private enterprise to set up rules as it sees fit and that means that they don't have to be 'fair' or anything else. Their rules don't have to make sense for anybody. If you don't like the rules don't post on the site. Go tell all your friends to boycott their site,too. Go start your own site and put whatever you want up there if you've got the initiative .Facebook didn't put a gun to anyone's head and making them establish a page so no one's rights are being trampled here. They don't have to change to appeal to your sense of how things should be (or mine either).
Everything in the world isn't designed to appeal to me and I can handle that.
"I'm defending the right of a private enterprise to set up rules as it sees fit"...true, but it's a slippery slope. This was the argument used by businesses that were "whites-only" in the past.
I get what you're trying to argue, but be careful. If we apply rules to one group they must apply to all, for example if a nipple is obscene take down pictures if men's nipples as well as women's or permit both based on what is best for your business. That was the heart of my argument.
If that were the case then you could open up a business today and post a sign on the door that said "no niggers allowed." I bet that would go over real well.
Crumpet, you just clearly demonstrated the double standard when it comes to male vs female breasts, with your comment there. Why do women's breasts have a "sexual function" and mens do not? Why is it that men get to define what function women's bodies have. Shouldn't it be women who define the sexuality of their own bodies.
Especially since, women's breasts are shaped the way they are because they produce milk for breast feeding, NOT sex.
Yet, it's heterosexual men who have self-servingly determined that women's breasts should serve a sexual purpose for heterosexual male pleasure. Not that women themselves should be free to deciding what function and role their own breasts should serve. Because everything in patriarchy is defined by the white heterosexual male norm, women's voices and opinions are blocked and ignored when it comes to defining our own sexuality.
Regardless of how the het-male norm defines women's breasts, there is NO fundamental difference in the appearance of male and female breasts. The nipples are the same, and these nipples both sit on top of skin, which is the same whether it be male or female. Except female nipples generally sit atop more fat tissue than males (I say generally because many males have bigger breasts than females).
In NYC the courts made it illegal to discriminate against women by prosecuting/arresting women who went topless or showed their breasts/nipples in public, on the basis that it violates the equal protection clause. It was an example of a law that was applied differently to two groups of people (i.e. women could be arrested for going topless but men wouldn't be)...in other words, it discriminated based on gender.
Thus, there's no basis in saying that "women's breasts are sexual therefore women should cover them up" just because "men want to define women's breasts as sexual for their own self-serving pleasure"...How would men think if all of a sudden the women of the world arbitrarily decided that men's noses were now to be considered "sexual body parts"...should men then be required to cover up their noses when in public, and if they didn't cover up, should those men be subject to arrest for "obscenity"? 99.999% of people would agree that this would be absurd. Except that it's the same principle behind the idea that women shouldn't show their breasts/breastfeed in public because "men say breasts are sexual". Both standards are in fact absurd. And it's absurd that men define what parts of women's bodies are "sexual/obscene" and in need of covering, as opposed to women being able to define their own sexuality. Especially, women who are breast feeding have every right to use their breasts for the purpose that they want, in this case FEEDING, without being subject the selfish hetero-male stereotyping of their body.
You know what? Screw what men think. I actually like my boobs a lot, for my own freaking sexual pleasure. Not for babies. Just for me. That my husband likes them,too is an added bonus.
Wow, how is that a response? Way to totally not refute the point, there.
yeah, good for you, I like my breasts too, but that wasn't really the point. *sigh*
I agree completely. But why don't I see posts here about oh... every network TV station, mainstream magazine, newspaper, website, every other forum where there are different standards of nudity, and public laws that allow men to go topless and not women? Why is there just sudden outrage about Facebook as though that particular website is being unusually heinous.
I agree with your point 100%, this just seems like finding a school room full of children misbehaving and just picking one to yell at while the others keep marauding around. That's why I said this isn't a "Facebook" issue, because it's a cultural issue. Facebook is just conforming the way every single other similar organization does. If we get a post like this, why don't we make about 1000 more posts with different companies filled in?
Bring up the issue and say "man it's sure fucked up that we treat men's and women's nudity differently" and then we can all sit around agreeing. This format just doesn't make sense.
That was my intention, Facebook simply provided a viable example.
Actually, protesting the most popular and dynamic aspects of our media savvy culture, like Facebook is exactly how we change things---they have positioned themselves as an indispensable outlet for networking and now have a good mix of people, including a fairly young demographic. You gotta start somewhere.
I like the idea of demanding that they remove all pictures of topless men.
No we don't, spike the cat, we don't have to start "somewhere." We shouldn't start anywhere, in fact! Given the fact the whole society's messed up, we CAN'T, we JUST CAN'T, focus on such a piddling little concern. We must fight the BIG battles and not waste time on this silly minor stuff.
All sarcasm, BTW. This is a common theme amongst detractors of progressive social movements: "Why are you focusing on X when there's the MUCH BIGGER AND MORE VITAL Y and Z to be dealt with?" Completely disregarding that we can walk and chew gum at the same time and critiquue Facebook as well as fight Domestic Violence. Round and round and round it goes, until...oops! There becomes *nothing* left which we can critique, according to these commentators.
But they're just doing it out of concern for our cause, don't you know. It's not as though this is a red herring to try to fend off legitimate criticism of problematic social norms.
I strongly suggest you read my above comment, but here's my last paragraph again in case you missed it:
"In other words, comparing a multi-user, multi-layer personalised profile-based user-controlled social networking site like Facebook to a single-layer media outlet like Fox News is extremely fallacious. They are completely disanalagous."
That would be your defence out the window.
..and since when do we argue that things shouldn't change when they agree with Faux News?
Ironically I had already responded to that post of yours before I saw this one.
Secondly, I'm not trying to defend anything, and I'm not saying you can't disagree with this, in fact I think you should. I think I just have a reputation as a trouble maker and everyone gets on the defensive when I make a post. I just said that this shouldn't be characterized as a Facebook issue because it's a larger cultural issue. Okay now lets go back to agreeing that unequal treatment sucks... yay.
Secondly, I'm not trying to defend anything, and I'm not saying you can't disagree with this, in fact I think you should. I think I just have a reputation as a trouble maker and everyone gets on the defensive when I make a post.
Well, you did defend Facebook in your original comment...
Here's the thing. I know you like to play devil's advocate, and I think there's a time and a place for that. In fact, at times I think it's very valuable to have a devil's advocate in the mix. But there are also times when constructive dialogue is happening, or could happen, and in this context some of your comments border on trollish behavior. So don't be surprised or act defensive if people jump on you for behaving this way. Most of us are here because we feel very passionate about these issues, and some of them affect us in our daily lives. Sincerely disagreeing and defending a position is one thing, but being a smart-ass just to yank people's chains is another. I argue with you often, and we often agree, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give you a free pass or feel sorry for you because of the reputation you've earned. Nobody should get a free pass in this kind of context,as far as I'm concerned.*
*Except maybe Okra and Spike because they'e so super-smart and always say such insightful, relevant, well-thought-out things. And I *heart* them. =)
Back atcha, Rachel in WY.
And may I express my admiration for your reasoned and *continuous* handling of contentious posters. I take a "5 strikes and you're out" policy; if a poster repeatedly insists on the same anti-humanist, pro-privilege set of ideals and talking points, even after numerous posters have gently pointed out the inhumanity of them, I stop engaging with the poster. It's just too much of a hamster's wheel--around and around we go, but when it will stop, nobody knows. Some people are dead-set on NEVER amending their arguments, if only for the sheer joy of contrarianism in a public sphere. This, I can neither respect nor, with my responses, help perpetuate. Disagreeing for the joy of being contrary was one of my favorite tactics when I was nine. No more.
Sadly, although I often appreciate his/her alternative viewpoints, and although I always enjoy a battle of words and wits, several comments this past month by doubleb have indicated to me that s/he is intent on snuggling closer into a mantle of privilege of which s/he is WELL aware.
So, for the time being, I am taking a hiatus; I'd rather spend my limited online time engaging with people who can reasonably "agree to DISagree" rather than with those who stubbornly insist their harmful assertions are not offensive. I hope you prove me wrong, doubleb.
*hugs* And I second Okra on your always insightful comments---actually both you and Okra kick some serious A around here...
I agree that I sometimes throw off constructive dialog, and I actually already felt bad for how much my initial statement has derailed this thread; especially since Jenn Astle has since made it clear that she just wanted to explore this as a social issue. It's really not my intent. I usually just have some nitpick that I want to point out, but it ends up becoming the center of the conversation. This thread is a fine example.
This entire issue bugs the hell out of me.
It's a larger societal issue, but the double standard has got to be called on and stands made somewhere.
Yes, facebook has a TOS set up that draws a line "showing the nipple or areola."
But apparently only that which belongs to a woman. (Because women's breasts are sexualized while men's aren't and obviously we can't have sexualized imagery. Oh...wait there are plenty of sexual images that have no hint of nipple. Hm.)
If you want to ban the nipple/areola, then do so across the board. No images of bare chested men either...unless the nipple and areola are sutiably covered.
Of course, I'm also a little annoyed at the constant defense of the bare female breast because of it's "proper function."
My breasts don't have a function, per se. I don't have or want children. They'll never be used to breastfeed.
I've seen the arguments from both sides go to the extreme: a female breast is only acceptable when it's sexualized or only acceptable when it's nursing a child.
Why can't it ever just be a breast as part of a person? Why can't a woman doff her shirt, like a man, and not be stared at, leered at, or otherwise immediately thought to be inviting sexual attention?
I haven't seen a whole lot of breastfeeding pictures, but in the ones I have seen the baby's mouth covers the nipples anyway? How much is this even a problem? Not that it should be anyway.
Oddly enough my brother who has just had a baby strongly believes women shouldn't breastfeed publicly, while childfree me could care less if they do or not. Go fig.
Myspace did the exact same thing. I saw several feminist blogs show the picture that was removed for being offensive (a mother breastfeeding) and another that was allowed to stay (a young blond with strategically placed electrical tape).
it's pretty clear that the problem for Facebook and Myspace is that its run by boys who like pornified boobs, and only pornified boobs.
Because titties belong to the men, not the babies.
shouldn't they belong to the women, not the men or the babies?
That's my stance.
Of course, but in a culture where women's bodies are always passive property, they'll always be seen as belonging to someone other than the woman. Because you'd have to be viewed as an autonomous agent in order to own your body. So, when many men see a woman breastfeeding they feel like they've been replaced by the baby. Poor dears.
And my earlier comment was sarcastic. =)
you know what I find interesting...women's nipples are immediately declared more sexual than men's...and yet, it is the male nipple that has a purely sexual function: it's not utilitarian, but a fun erogenous zone (for some, anyway). If we're going to declare something obscene for being sexual, then shouldn't we call obscene those body parts whose *only purpose* is sexual? By this logic, men are the ones who should be covering up.
Of course, this leaves aside the problems I have with this idiot culture's terror of sexuality in general...
Better yet, how about we tackle the issue of double standards when it comes to female and male nudity in American films? That is one instance where it is acceptable and encouraged to show female breasts and even full frontal nudity but practically any movie that shows a penis gets hit with an NC-17 rating. Why is it essential to the plot that we show a naked female having sex with her boyfriend while his penis is conveniently obscured by a shadow or sheet or whatever?
Yes, I know it's because it's good to show naked women for male sexual pleasure, but I wonder why we don't get more up in arms about this lack of nudity parity?
I don't know if you're a feminist, so I don't know who is the "we" in your question.
Feminists, though, already thought of that.
And guess what?
We feminists can tackle BOTH issues at the Very. Same. Time!
Oh snap. Agree with me or I will call your loyalty to the cause into question. Why are you wearing red Okra? Are you a COMMUNIST???
Seriously? How exactly is Okra supposed to know whether Crumpet is a feminist? Saying you're unsure of the other person's stance is not the same as whipping out the "bad feminist" card. Grow up already.
The fact that I post here somewhat regularly and give my input instead of just being a hit and run one liner who calls everybody names might be a clue. No, I don't automatically agree with everyone else but I don't see where I've ever posted anything against womens' rights that would indicate I'm not a feminist. In fact I've said so outright in several threads and even got verbally spanked once for saying I was irritated with women who said they believe in equal rights for women but don't want to be called feminist. Go figure.
Yeah, I definitely don't think you have to agree with everyone all the time. But Doubleb's response to Okra was kind of extreme given the fact that he doesn't know if or how often you guys have interacted before. And I hate it when people play the "bad feminist" card on people who disagree with them, but I don't think that's what Okra was doing.
Rachel in WY understood me, as thankfully is her wont.
I genuinely do not know whether or not Crumpet self-identifies as feminist. Many people run shrieking from the term, even if they agree with the basic tenets of feminism/humanism. Indeed, I recall several posters on this site who offered the caveat that they did not feel comfortable with the term itself (for example, some ethnic minorities who have legit beef with the Euro-centric focus of mid-20th century feminist writers and thinkers. I try to do people the courtesy of not making assumptions about their "status" or "label."
Further, even when a poster's repeated comments have been clearly and offensively anti-woman, anti-minority, and shrouded in unexamined privilege, I prefer not to shriek at them "You're not a real feminist." Rather, I call them on the carpet about specific comments they make, and point out WHY they are anti-XYZ and insufferably wedded to privilege.
Personally, I like it when someone points out a privileged perspective from which I approach an issue. Better to know about it and deal with it, yes?
Awareness is always the beginning...
I apologize for misinterpreting you. I assumed that the people posting here are feminists, and I assumed that other people assumed that. It sounded to me like the "bad feminist card" which obviously annoys me. Probably because it's a reaction I see a lot of. =)
I am incredibly confused now. Does ANYONE on this page NOT agree with the following points:
- It is a double standard to allow male nipples and not female nipples
-This is a widespread cultural problem, and we should question it in a widespread systemic way
-Facebook is also a small part of this problem, so why not call them out on it too?
One-upping aside, what is actually being disputed about these three points? Anything? (And yes, I did read all the comments, it's just really difficult to separate out the points that are being discussed from all the... other stuff)
The same thing happened on the CNN story from which I sourced, although the conversation went from breastfeeding to public masturbation instead of just picking each other's comments apart. Who knew that breastfeeding was a topic so easily digressed from?
Well, I guess be happy that the things you have to say are so compelling? Ya know, things can get boring if people agree *too* much, you have to stir things up if you want to get below the surface. My comment was just trying to get some kind of foothold on the debate here. But I think you pick really, really good things to post, because they bring out issues that need to worked through. And maybe we'll spill some blood on here, but I think we all come away a little better educated for it. :D
Let me clarify matters for you:
There was not consensus on your third point.
Some people expressed, repeatedly and for varying reasons, that posters should *not* call out Facebook.
Others disagreed.
I really cringe at the thought of defending doubleb again because I don't want to seem like I'm somehow in league with him or whatever, but you couldn't be talking about anyone else so I'll just go ahead and shoot myself in the foot:
Doubleb: "I said that I agree with criticizing this, all I disagree with is characterizing it as "Facebook's" war as though it's not a larger cultural problem."
Doubleb: "I like the idea of demanding that they[Facebook] remove all pictures of topless men."
I'm sorry, that really seems like agreeing to me. Maybe overstating some things (we didn't really need to affirm that we're not ignoring the larger issue, as in the first quote). But it still really seems to me that we all agree on the third point.
And as for Crumpet, the only other person I can see you possibly be referring to- once it got to defending the rights of a company to run their business how it wants, she was being attacked and so was becoming very defensive. It's hard for me tell if her original point was that Facebook *should not* be called out at all, or if she was just explaining (which is different form defending or excusing) how their stance came to be.
Which is why I asked for clarification from the actual dissenters. I'm curious if, coming from her mouth and not someone speaking for her, she actually does disagree with my third point. I can understand how my comment could be misinterpreted though, so thank you for trying to clarify.
I think the whole issue is really, honestly, blown out of proportion. Facebook, as a private company, is under no obligation to enact any rule change by will of the people alone. They made a business decision to enforce their terms of service in such a way and the people who disagree this much with their policies should take their business elsewhere. There are scores of social networking sites which could benefit from the boost in web traffic and could cater to the niche specifically -- and there probably already is one, given the way the internet works.
What I personally don't understand is why a person would put semi-nude pictures of themselves online in the first place? Internet safety aside, it can be very embarrassing for the child in the future when someone uses a google way-back machine and hacks into these pictures of their Mom, semi-nude, breast feeding them. I know I was breast fed as a child, but I don't want to see pictures of it. Furthermore, with society's general views on breast feeding (my own notwithstanding), it can really damage future career hopes if any of these pictures leaks. And pictures like this do leak. Maybe you want to show your husband on a business trip or your close friends in California, but it doesn't mean that that picture can't escape from a nice hacker and posted on 4-chan for meme proliferation.
Do I have a problem with breast feeding? No, I don't. Everybody's got to eat and Mom's milk is best for health and development. But, anything you post on the internet should always be considered in some way public because it could, unwillingly, become public.
I'm gonna take this one slow so I don't explode.. *ahem*
They made a business decision to enforce their terms of service in such a way and the people who disagree this much with their policies should take their business elsewhere.
This line of argument goes "They have the rights under business law to do X. If you don't like X. Don't go there and don't whine." Under this line of argument: nobody should argue for better nutrition at, say, McDonalds - they should just stop eating there; nobody should complain about women getting paid less than men - they should just stop working there; and nobody should complain about sexist advertising - they should just stop.. watching TV?
If everybody just left things as they are because they were legal, then slavery would still be around, as would laws against interracial marriage, and women still would not have the vote. They may be large examples, but the reason that these battles are fought is to promote human rights and equality. In this case, when a company decides that one standard is acceptable for men, and that the same standard is unacceptable to women, then that is a case of inequality and should be pointed out.
Furthermore, I don't think anyone was trying to say that facebook's actions are illegal, just that they are inequitable.
What I personally don't understand is why a person would put semi-nude pictures of themselves online in the first place?
You don't need to understand it, it's their choice.
it can be very embarrassing for the child in the future when someone uses a google way-back machine and hacks into these pictures of their Mom, semi-nude, breast feeding them
I've never heard of anybody being embarassed by such a photo. You may feel that way, but that does not mean that everyone would. Also, since it's not you who is "exposed", then it really doesn't implicate you at all, even if you do think of such photos as "obscene". You were a baby, what is there to be embarassed about?
Also, several of my friends have shown me photos (taken with an analogue camera, obviously) of themselves as babies breastfeeding, and it is usually part of their childhood photo album. I myself have shown a lot of people a photo of me breastfeeding as a baby and nobody has ever been taken aback or shown any signs of awkwardness at such a photo being amongst the collection.
with society's general views on breast feeding (my own notwithstanding), it can really damage future career hopes if any of these pictures leaks. And pictures like this do leak
I think that if a woman wanted to only show her husband, she would email it to him. Most women who are participating in the protest against facebook are women who are not ashamed of showing their breast while breastfeeding, so would not feel shamed if such a photo were leaked. I certainly would not have a problem if everyone knew I was breastfeeding my child.
How do you figure that career hopes would be dashed by someone publically breastfeeding? If someone knows you're female, they know that pregnancy could be a possibility, and breastfeeding is a widely-accepted part of child rearing. Society has widely accepted breastfeeding, so your claim that "society's general views on breast feeding" would lead to career damage is... interesting, if not facetious.
anything you post on the internet should always be considered in some way public because it could, unwillingly, become public.
I think this final sentence highlights your underlying assumptions:
1. That women don't want to show themselves breastfeeding in public
2. That society would react badly to women breastfeeding
3. That people will feel embarassed or ashamed to see photos of women breastfeeding.
The fact that these women want to, and are actively campaigning (with photos) to, have their breastfeeding displayed on Facebook would negate 1 and 3. And the public support which these mothers have received negates 2, and 3 again.
Furthermore if you want to talk legals, women are legally allowed to breastfeed in public.
These movements are helping women to realise that their nipples are no more "embarassing" or "shameful" or "obscene" or "exposed" than an out-in-the-open male nipple. If anything, it should be less of all of the above because it's a natural process to do with the most basic instinct of animals - to perpetuate the species. And to be blunt, it's beautiful.
All of your arguments revolve around what the hypothetical "you" would do - it's personal advice, not a logical argument. They are different. You would be perfectly welcome to state these opinions as part of a conversation with a friend considering posting her breastfeeding pictures on the internet, however that doesn't mean that those same points are relevant in a discussion over whether banning such photos is discriminatory. The closest thing you had to that was your legal argument, which was facetious.
In a concluding statement (this has again turned out to be too long - oh dear!), to say that one of the smaller issues of equality has been "blown out of proportion" is to say that sexism and discrimination is OK as long as it's not very obvious, very illegal, or impacts greatly on your life. Pointing out and criticising sexism and oppression are what feminist sites are for. If you have a problem with people pointing out discrimination in all it's forms, big or small, public or private, whether you'd participate in that issue or not, then I think you've come to the wrong site.
"If everybody just left things as they are because they were legal, then slavery would still be around, as would laws against interracial marriage, and women still would not have the vote."
The only problem with using slavery, interracial marriage, or women's suffrage as an analogy is that none of those issues got changed through just public outrage. All of them required changing legislation so that the laws mandated equal treatment. While I understand that maybe the public outrage is the first step, I also feel that boycotting Facebook should be another step along this progression. Simply being upset with a TOS won't change Facebook. Simply boycotting them most likely won't either.
If people want to create real change, historically it's taken a movement up through legislation. Namely, laws need to be put in place (or maybe they need to be enforced, I'm not sure) but just calling out Facebook isn't going to fix the problem, since (huge generalization) most businesses, organizations, and people are LAZY and won't change anything unless forced to. I can understand the outrage over the nipple double standard, and I can understand as well that Facebook is just one of many organizations, businesses, or people that goes along with that double standard.
I really do think though, that they only way things like this will change is through laws. At this point, I don't think it's just breastfeeding that needs to be addressed, but the entire double standard of women's breasts being obscene but men's being fine. Is there any push for changing legislation on this double standard?
The thing is that, assuming the legislation is anything like here in Australia, Facebook is able to regulate content on its servers as it likes - it's legally their website. It's up to them to decide what is acceptable and unacceptable. In terms of publically governing laws, public breastfeeding is legal. There's no doubt about that. The difficulty with changing the legislation would be that you would have to legislate that "breastfeeding photos must be allowed to be shown where male nipples are allowed", or something to that effect. Considering there are currently no laws (except pornography laws) governing what user-generated (i.e. uncopyrighted) content can and cannot be allowed, it would be very strange to advocate that the first law of its kind be about showing nipples. Don't get me wrong, you could lobby for it, but it would be very strange.
In this case I agree that a boycott would probably be the best option, but unfortunately Facebook has a monopoly on social networking at my university and amongst my colleagues, meaning that "allows the showing of breastfeeding" would have to be a make-it-or-break-it point for my social networking choices. For me, personally, it is not (yet) the main determinant of which one I use. However, just because I want to keep using that site, that doesn't mean I don't feel passionately about the issue.
I should probably note that McDonalds, for example, didn't introduce the 'Healthy Options' menu here in Australia until after SupersizeMe became a big hit here. As far as I know there weren't any boycotts, it was just the media taking McDonalds to task about the quality of their food. I don't see any reason why complaints and media attention shouldn't influence the makers of Facebook.
Ideally I would be with you, and argue for a legal change in order to address a social inequity. However this isn't something which can be legislated and for a lot of people, a boycott would be close to impossible and, for Facebook, almost unnoticeable, especially given that their advertisers pay per ad shown/clicked, which is independent of how many active users there are.
Why do my comments always end up so long? :-(
Basically I say that if you can boycott, boycott. BUT if you can't, that doesn't mean you lose the right to complain and advocate for change. :-)
The only problem with using slavery, interracial marriage, or women's suffrage as an analogy is that none of those issues got changed through just public outrage. All of them required changing legislation so that the laws mandated equal treatment.
But where did the motivation come from to change the laws? If people didn't publically communicate their outrage concerning issues like this, why would there ever be legislative change? Are you aware of the movement to abolish slavery and the suffragettes?
I believe I mentioned that public outrage would be the first step of many steps necessary to change Facebook's policy. Just because I am advocating further steps doesn't mean I'm not completely in understanding of the validity of public outrage as used as a political motivator. Also, thank you for calling into question my understanding of the history of either women's suffrage or the abolishment of slavery. Thank you for making this a place where everyone can feel comfortable sharing ideas in order to try and find a direction for the public outrage to go to actually be productive.
So, if slavery and women's suffrage aren't good analogies, then what is? Assumably these things started with discussions by people who were opposed to them and then moved to more serious public action, so it's unclear to my why the analogy is problematic.
I'm not entirely sure where you're going with your post, since I never said anything about the analogies not being accurate. In my first post I specifically asked if there was any push to continue this beyond public outrage. This continues to be my question, and I haven't seen anything actually addressing this.
One problem I see with using the abolition of slavery as an analogy is that it diminishes those two events. I have a bit of trouble comparing the torture and enslavement of an entire race with the desire to post a picture for others to see.
The only problem with using slavery, interracial marriage, or women's suffrage as an analogy is that none of those issues got changed through just public outrage.
In this comment it sounds like you're saying that slavery, interracial marriage, and women's suffrage are not good analogies because they required legislation in order to bring about change. In this way (the progression of outrage to public action to legislation) they do seem like good analogies. In other respects, not so much. So basically I'm agreeing with you that societal changes often have to follow this progression, but I'm not sure why the analogies are problematic. And I'm not sure why starting with public outrage is problematic. You have to start somewhere.
I'm trying to digest your argument and the accusation of me being a sexist.
First of all, this isn't like McDonald's or any of those other business entities and your argument falters there. Facebook, as an internet hosting entity for user generated content, is in SOLE control of what goes onto its site because if something goes wrong, it's partially Facebook's responsibility. Just like any site which hosts pictures, and other user-generated content, it is completely under its own right to say "no breast feeding". If Facebook says "ok, breastfeeding" then it does; if it doesn't, it doesn't. As a user you've agreed to their ToS which is however they want to enforce their own rules regardless of how sexist any individual might feel they are.
As far as your McDonald's example -- yes, that is EXACTLY what I'm saying to a certain extent. If people stopped patronizing the fattening places and started buying more healthy food options, McDonald's would change their menu to reflect that. That's business. Facebook is no different or it faces its own death on this.
With the third point I made, I had actually orginally included a part about someone from a site like 4-chan hacking it and slashing it into some internet meme. There you are on the internet, ALL OVER the internet (a la Star Wars and NumaNuma Kids) and you have absolutely no choice in the matter because your Mom 10 years previous decided to post a picture of herself with you having lunch. That is what could happen and, in an effort to not be tl;dr, I kept out but thought the argument was pretty lucid without the details.
I also threw in the "I don't understand" because I don't. It's an admission which I felt was important to the issue because it's something, it seems, a lot of the community seems to be supportive of, but honestly confuses me because of places like 4-chan's /b forum and other really malicious places on the internet who do really nasty things because "it's funny". It's naive to think that you picture may not be one of the ones used at some point in the future.
As far as you using the statement about anything you posting on the internet ONLY having to do with this one particular issue, I think you've misfired in an attempt to flame me (imo). Anyone who is young enough to have grown up with the internet and, in particular, messaging programs knows that anything you put online can become public. Whether it's your deepest secrets in a blog, a picture you post off your webcam or any other content you decided to host in the internet. It's a basic tenant of internet safety and privacy. It, in fact, has nothing at all to do with shame over anything and everything to do with your own personal space. The internet is like walking into a Roman Forum and then, with the things you don't want anyone to see, turning into a corner. You can't guarantee someone's not going to see it and you certainly guarantee that they're not say anything about it.
And I repeat that I do think this is blown out of proportion. When you sign up for ANYONE's little place on the internet -- Facebook, Livejournal (who also has this breastfeeding issue), even here -- you agree to abide by their rules. On Facebook, it's not YOUR piece of the internet. It's your piece of THEIR PART of the internet. You can put nearly anything you want on a site you own and host (barring federal laws). You set your own rules for your own hosting. That's the way the internet works. That's the way it's always worked.
As far as accusing me of trying to shame breastfeeding mothers, that's ridiculous. Mom's milk is best and you should never deny it of a child. Breastfeeding in public is legal; I'm well aware of that having worked in a coffee bar where mothers fed their children on our couch. There's nothing wrong with it -- and there shouldn't be an attitude like there is. If I didn't feel this way, I wouldn't be here to begin with. I just think that posting it online is a dumb idea and I think, even more so, that acknowledging that some people may not want to be seen that way in the future is not a shit argument. It's true. Not everyone holds your beliefs, but it doesn't make them invalid which seems to be crutch of your argument -- or at least your attitude.
"Furthermore, with society's general views on breast feeding (my own notwithstanding), it can really damage future career hopes if any of these pictures leaks."
I seriously doubt pictures of mom breastfeeding = pictures of mom showing her boobs in a Girl Gone Wild Video which will damage her career.
We're not talking hardcore porn here.
"What I personally don't understand is why a person would put semi-nude pictures of themselves online in the first place? Internet safety aside, it can be very embarrassing for the child in the future when someone uses a google way-back machine and hacks into these pictures of their Mom, semi-nude, breast feeding them. I know I was breast fed as a child, but I don't want to see pictures of it. "
This is the most BS argument I've ever heard.
Why would it be embaressing for the child if the pictures came out??? That sounds like shaming breast feeding mothers to me. What is embaressing about it? If you know you were breastfed, then how is seeing a picture of it any different then knowing it!?!
And why would it be embaressing? Because there is a breast exposed? Having a breast exposed is NOT embaressing and should not be. That's practically the whole point of this conversation.
Terrible argument.
It's embarrassing on the same level that any person could find any serious bonding moment captured for the ages and then put in a public space embarrassing. Breastfeeding is a monumental bonding activity between mom and child and there could be people who equate that picture to putting real closeness between them and their mother on display. their love for their mom is not for the internet to evaluate and comment on unless they both choose it to be. To add to it, their mother is the one who decided that their bonding was for public display and admonishment like their love was some sort of trophy. You put those pictures in a baby book so look over later and remember the beauty of being a new mom and the development of your child. You put them on the internet for attention and praise.
The funny think is you can't see the nipple if you are breastfeeding.
I see more of the breasts in women who are NOT breastfeeding because there's no gigantic baby head to hide the view.
I addressed this VERY issue on my blog.
I went on a hunt on Myspace to find some boobage to post as proof that women can post near TOTAL nudity and Myspace does nothing. Same with Facebook.
Women can post pictures where they are "scantily" clad and yet their pictures remain for anyone to see.
This includes young girls as young as 14 and 15 showing off bare midriffs, breasts, peaking nipplage..
I kid you not, I found some really tacky albeit nekkid pictures of all sorts of females.
Please No Booby Shots
You don't HAVE to go view my blog, but I posted a lot of example pictures of what our society "allows" or deems as "normal" whereas a picture of a breastfeeding child is "gross" and "disgusting"
This also occured when Parenting magazine put a breastfeeding mother on the front cover of one of their magazines.
People were SHOCKED and "Disgusted" that Parenting would do that. What would *gasp* their children think if they saw a breast on a cover of a magazine!
It has been like this for years. Although I was able to breastfeed my first son for as long as possible, I could not breastfeed my two younger sons.
I absolutely HATE that people feel the bottle is better or somehow more acceptable. I have to bottle feed my baby because I couldn't breastfeed.
I looked into banked breast milk but the expense was too high.
My oldest son has the immune system of a rock. He NEVER gets sick,when he does it's for a day.
I won't go into my two younger sons and their health. :/
oh wow, going on a rant of my own here. :X
What started a lot of the debate among the moms who protested the Facebook policy was that their pictures were removed even when THEY WERE NOT EXPOSING THIER NIPPLES. Here is a link to a banned photo of one of the moms who started to protest. Not a nipple to be seen.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1869126,00.html
I see London, I see France, I see... uh, areola?
Facebook is a private entity, you are free to use the free services they are offering if you comply with their terms of service.
Facebook seems to be following the American standard of acceptable nudity, and in American culture the areola and nipple of a woman being exposed would raise a few eyebrows. This might not be the case depending on geographical region you inhabit. So, as someone stated earlier, they are trying to ensure that the photos posted are palatable for the majority.
Actually, it's the American hysteria about breastfeeding they're responding to. As many other commenters have already noted, they don't object to exposed male nipples or female breasts if they're shown for male pleasure, but they do remove any pictures of breastfeeding, whether or not there is any nipple or areola showing.
I can't see an areola in that photo. Unless Kelli's areola is grossly asymmetrical, with a straight edged top and covering most of the left side of her breast, then what you see above the baby appears to be a shadow of the baby's head.
Of course Facebook can set standards. By why apply them inconsistently against a breastfeeding mother? Much more breast shows in many Facebook photos that are explicitly sexual in nature.
The law on the books in most states says that women have the right to expose the breast, including the nipple and areola, when incidental to breastfeeding. So even if the WHOLE NIPPLE were showing, that would not be any more than what is currently permissible in any public place in most states. That makes their argument about trying to protect children seem ridiculous.
Not to mention in most countries including Canada and some states in the US it's perfectly legal to walk down the street topless if you are a woman. That's flat-out topless not just little nipple.
Pacifist: If you do some digging (hell, you don't even have to "dig") on Myspace OR Facebook, you'll notice pictures of women's breasts 10 times worse than the photo of Kellie Roman feeding her infant.
I love these shirts found: http://t-shirts.cafepress.com/item/breastfeeding-in-public-advoc-womens-pink-tshirt/36224527
and
http://t-shirts.cafepress.com/item/superpower-womens-cap-sleeve-tshirt/64722664
pretty much sums it up.
Funny how women can't show their nipples b/c they're sexual, and men can b/c theirs are not sexual.
Wait a minute! Women's nipples are the ones who have some non-erotic functions, like feeding babies and toddlers and adults adrift at sea. Men's nipples are all about sex. I mean, really, what other purpose do those things serve?
Just try to imagine a "hunk" without his nipples and you'll see what I mean. But it's not just how they look.... they have sexual responses as well. (Why does society pretend they don't?(
Clearly, men are the ones with sex-only nipples.
(I am being somewhat facetious as I would never assert that breastfeeding is non-sexual. It may be non-erotic but it is very sexual, as is childbirth.)
I disagree with censoring breast feeding but comparing bare chested males to bare chested females is laughable. Female breasts are highly sexualized because of biological rather than social reasons and yes, this has been highly documented.
The last thing we want is a slow desensitization of female nudity just because feminists can't understand that men and women look different up there and react in a sexual way (yes this has been empirically shown also) differently to the opposite gender when they are bare chested.
You carry on about rape, objectifying women and the pressure women have in trying to look as sexual as possible yet have no problem promoting female nudity with the reason that men can go shirtless? I also recall that in parts of Europe that men, not women, can be fined simply for lowriding. Why is this I wonder?
Sources please? Could you link to the studies that show that female breasts are sexualized in all cultures? What are you basing your claims on? How do you explain the many cultures around the world in which women go topless routinely and nobody bats an eye? Do your studies explain these many outliers?
You know, us feminists are kind of slow and can't understand even the most obvious of facts that are right in front of our faces. It's probably because, as everyone knew during the Victorian era, having a uterus interferes and severely reduces brain function, so you'll have to be patient with us and provide us with all of your source material. Refereed journals, please.
And stigmatizing something, or acting as if it's some shocking and obscene thing, is one of the ways that a culture establishes the significance of it as "sexual." Once you remove the stigma and alleged obscenity, it just becomes another body part. Are you familiar with the scandalous history of the (ultra-sexual) female ankle?
As I said in the last post, the reaction men have to female breasts is biological not cultural. In cultures where it is socially acceptable for women to go shirtless men have already been desensitized before they've ever reached puberty. Where do you think the term 'bikini' came from? The Island which was used a nuclear test site to display the male's reaction to women wearing them.
Stigmatizing something? You do realize that women have more sexual power over men because we haven't been desensitized to female secondary sex characteristics. As far as I've observed, women are the ones that show a higher percentage of skin than men, you see men dressing moderately far more often than women.
Aside from all that, people have the right to take their kids into public without the fear that their kids will be sexually aroused in public settings, if you think this is sexist blame nature! If you can't respect the eyes of men then you don't deserve to be respected fullstop.
Wow, what a devastating response. Did you find any studies to back up your claims? No? I thought not.
As I said in the last post, the reaction men have to female breasts is biological not cultural.
Right. I already responded to that, but since reading is not your strong suit, I'll repeat. If something is biological then you can expect it to be universal. The fact that socialization determines male reactions to female breasts (as you yourself admit) indicates that it is not (at least exclusively) biological.
And requiring people to cover up a part of their body because it is "obscene" is a form of stigmatization, which almost always heightens people's interest in it. You think the female breast is sexual because you have been socialized to view it as belonging to the heterosexual male gaze. That doesn't mean that it's "naturally" sexual, so your little rant about not wanting your kids to see it is an expression of your personal preference, but that's all. Do you protect your kids from Victoria's Secret ads, music videos, magazine covers, and almost every TV show and movie produced in our culture? Because if you don't want them to see any titties, breastfeeding moms is the least of your worries.
In cultures where it is socially acceptable for women to go shirtless men have already been desensitized before they've ever reached puberty.
You do realize this desensitization is exactly the socialization Rachel_in_WY was talking about, and which you, futilely (in the face of mountains of anthropological evidence), continue to refute?
Social scientist here to burst your bubble.
Rather than provide a citation-less (ahem...) summary of the many societies around the world for which the naked female breast carries little to no sexual significance, I offer one documented example. As any anthropologist will tell you, and as Rachel in WY points out, any claims to “human universals” are shot if one exception can be found. Only, in the case of female brast nudity, hundreds of societies on 6 continents is not exactly "an exception," but a recurrent human model.
To wit:
Excerpts from,
Some Nuer Notions of Nakedness, Nudity, and Sexuality by T. O. Beidelman. Journal of the International African Institute, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Apr., 1968), pp. 113-132.
The unclad Nuer [southern Sudan] are concerned about such body covering only on certain restricted social occasions in the case of men; and in the case of women, only persons with the status of mothers of children. (Beidelman 115).
Till marriage girls are naked. After marriage they wear a special little skirt, but may take it off when they please till they have had a child. (Beidelman quoting the seminal work in Nuer ethnogrpahy of Professor Evans-Pritchard).
Not incidentally, societies also vary just as much on what they DO sexualize. For example, in European-derivative societies, the sexes do not have prohibitions on eating food in front of each other. Whereas for traditional Nuer society:
A youth is particularly careful not to be seen eating by unrelated girls...Food must never be mentioned in the presence of girls, and a man will endure severe hunger rather than let them know that he has not eaten for a long time. It is a strict rule of Nuer society that the sexes, unless they are close kin, avoid each other in the matter of food. Nuer do not go near persons of the other sex when they are eating... Even before a young man has started to look for a bride he will not generally eat with most senior men, unless they are kin, because one of them might become his father-in-law. (Ibid. 115)
Of the many European habits which are strange to Nuer the one I have heard them speak of with the greatest disapproval is that of a man eating with his wife in public. Husband and wife also respect each other's name by avoiding its use. Sweethearts display similar behaviour. (Ibid).
Indeed, some elderly Nuer I know have remarked with deep disapproval over the sexually permissive societies of the Westerners who visit. So, while a group of modern day Euro-American fundies visiting Nuerland would be SHOCKED if the local women ditched their pirated Guess? tee-shirts to approximate traditional Nuer nudity, in turn, the old-timer Nuer would gasp over the sexually profligate Southern Baptist men and women eating goat stew at the same table.
As you may have noted to yourself by now, eating is not inherently sexual. (The only thing that is universally inherently sexual if the joining together of sets of genitals.) So why do Nuer and, say, Greek society differ so dramatically on the former’s belief that eating is “inherently” sexual?
The same answer we offer for almost all human-only phenomena:
Socialization, my dear Watson.
"Feminists seem to have a hard time understanding..." "breastfeeding sexually arouses children who see it!", "you women need to respect the EYES OF MEN"...We've got the condescending "your ladybrains just don't get it" remarks, we've got the woman-blaming sexual-gatekeeper bullshit about how the female body automatically inspires arousal in all who survey it and must be contained, and we've got the all-important "respect men and their uncontrollable penises, for if you taunt us with your partially-visible milkbags you are not deserving of respect!" Three strikes, with an extra "fake biology says so!" to grow on.
Troll-B-Gone on aisle four, please.
I find this just absurd, too. Thanks for posting on this. I joined the Facebook group and posted a link about it for my girl buds.
You're absolutely right. Titties were not designed for men to look at. They were designed to sustain babies. It's pretty rotten that Facebook has to buy wholesale - I guess like everyone else - into the sexualizing of women's bodies.
Oh, P.S.: Only in the United States are people so tit-phobic.
Well, not only. But you get my point.
There might seem to be some truth in the argument "Facebook and other media outlets are only enforcing the dominant cultural and political norms that already exists"... but it's not really fully true. It's actually hiding the truth. It is not true that they "only" follow cultural norms - they create, define and enforce them.
Culture is generally seen as something that evolves organically between (more or less equal) individuals who influence each other. But that is not the case here. We also evolve our culture through media - in the literal sense of the word: "the media" is one of the media through which we relate to each other. The media is a structure that defines which cultures are allowed to evolve at all. If the media refuses to show anything that has to do with gays, trans-people, or as in this case: mammals, then the media-executives are not "just following" cultural norms, but acting as authorities that determine what is to be and remain cultural norms. The organically evolved cultural norms about breast feeding might change over time - but in this case a medium is acting as an authority that actively prevents this culture from changing by removing any displays that it might he accepted. They do not "follow" cultural trends. They prevent trends from happening by eliminating cultural changes and deviance.
This authority goes way beyond a single culture. Facebook is not just following and enforcing the dominant culture in the US to preserve cultural status quo in the US. Facebook is a global tool, used by people all over the world, but they all have to follow American culture when they use Facebook and agrees with the arbitrary moral-cultural T&C.
In Scandinavia (where I grew up) there is not the same taboo against breast feeding. We had that battle a generation ago and changed our culture, so that it is now not "weird" to be a mammal or a mother. But all Scandinavians using Facebook have to follow the US culture that Facebook is enforcing (whereby it is not a culture at all but a policy). Similarly using Facebook British people have to obey the US policies about the "English" language. In the US, and on global Facebook, some English words are cursed and may not be uttered in writing or speech. This is not so in England, but British people have to obey this American religion if they want to use Facebook. Thereby FB is not "just following american culture and language" (which is in any case a totally false argument) but enforcing this policy (not a culture) on the British people and everybody else.
Of course people all over the world chose to use Facebook and can chose not to. But by enforcing a particular version of US Christian fundamentalism on this global tool - pretending it's just "following the cultural norms" - Facebook is a global authority that will change cultures everywhere. Some words that are not taboo in England today might become taboo in a few years because British people use Facebook and get their sense of "what is accepted" from the structures that Facebook determines. And, god forbid, maybe breast feeding will become culturally taboo in Scandinavia in a few years because Scandinavians have been using and obeying Facebook's rules about what is "appropriate".
When you are an authority that can decide what is to be uttered and what is not, when you determine the structures of a culture, then you are not "just following" culture. You create it - and prevent it from being truly "culture" in the sense "ideas and norms that change over time through human interaction".
Imaging a global tool for communication and social interaction that was used by billions but was based in Iran and everybody in the world had to follow the Ayatollah's commandments. Imagine that despite the limitations on free social interaction it was still very popular. Would anyone claim that this was truly just "following cultural norms" rather than defining and enforcing them?
Is it the men whining? I wouldn't be surprised. It's because the breast is being used for what it was intended to do, not being pushed up and dripped on by oil. To them breastfeeding is not sexy and thus not acceptable. It doesn't involve muscles or sex or domination so it is not important. The ones whining are most likely the ones that do not care about inner strength or child bonding because it is not something logical and able to be seen in the real. It is something they do not have, and cannot control so it must be banished. Same thing with pregnancy and menstruation; they cannot do it or control it so it must be demoralized and shunned. This is western view of course where image and sex is everything it seems. There are tribes that value the breast the way it should be valued, and seeing it open in public is completely normal.