Facebook, for anyone unfamiliar, is a social networking site, a more organized and less gaudy version of MySpace. Originally started for college students, Facebook opened up to anyone with an email address earlier this year. You can post a mini biography, let others know what you're up to, keep in contact with friends, upload pictures. Of course, not just any pictures will do; Facebook has a user agreement that includes a ban on "pornographic" pictures from their site.
This clause recently got Karen Speed, a Canadian mom, in trouble. Facebook originally took down photos it deemed "obscene content," and then deleted her account altogether:
After reviewing your situation, we have determined you violated our Terms of Use. Please note, nudity, drug use, or other obscene contentis not allowed on the website. Additionally, we do not allow users to send threatening, obscene, and harassing messages. Unsolicited messages will also not be tolerated. We will not be able to reactivate your account for any reason. This decision is final. Thanks for understanding.
Not surprisingly, this has caused an uproar. Facebook now has a petition group to protest the decision (currently ~20,000 members strong), but those at Facebook don't seem to be budging: Karen says they're still deleting breastfeeding photos and banning other moms' accounts.
And as a mom of three and an advocate of breastfeeding, Karen isn't taking this lying down. Word has spread around the 'tubes, and several news outlets (including the Toronto Star) have picked up the story. This is great and all and I hope the publicity changes some more minds (and encourages Facebook to reverse their decision), but it's still pathetic that in this day and age this is even a story. Newsflash: BREASTS HAVE A FUNCTION. They feed babies. Telling women that seeing them nurse is nasty and "obscene:" bad. Encouraging moms to breastfeed babies if they are willing and able: good. Simple. So why is it that a story comes along every 6 months or so where this has to be hammered into more heads?
Clearly, the solution to this is more frequent reminders of PZ's nipple so Facebook can see what's *really* offensive. Maybe that'll learn 'em.
[Edited to add: Doc Bushwell has another anti-breastfeeding story, as Bill Maher has come out against moms feeding in public as well. Check it out.]
- Log in to post comments
I've only now just recovered from seeing PZ's nipple back in August and you had to bring it up again, didn't you?
In all seriousness, this Facebook deletion is beyond ridiculous - thank you for posting info on the petition.
I don't see why there should be a problem with photos of babies breastfeeding, their heads always cover the best parts.
Maybe the monitors of Facebook are just jealous.
What morons. First, they don't even know the difference between "obscene" and "indecent". Second, women being without a top is completely legal in Canada (where Karen is). [Google "Gwen Jacobs"]. So this is a case of the US dictating its archaic standards on the rest of the world.
We laugh at the burqa-ed, and then do the equivalent.
This is ridiculous. We should be celebrating breastfeeding as the most natural way to give a baby nutrition, not forcing women to feed in toilet stalls and deleting photos from facebook. With these sort of attitudes it's no wonder that so many women choose formula because they are uncomfortable with the "threat" of nursing in public.
This makes me very angry. I've joined the group and emailed Facebook.
Well - facebook is in charge, so tough to Karen and quit whining Tara.
"And as a mom of three and an advocate of breastfeeding, Karen isn't taking this lying down".
She's had 3 children - so, she is obviously no stranger to lying down - pity she doesn't here.
There is nothing as beautiful as a mother breastfeeding her baby. How anyone can take offense at a photo of that or it happening live and in living color in a restaurant, on a park bench, on a bus, or anywhere is beyond my understanding. What are these (the offended ones) people afraid of? Oh, I know! Hearts will soften. People will become less fearful. They will come to understand that the fire and brimstone brought to you from the pulpit of of their church or the bully pulpit of the White House is a bunch of hogwash. We can't have that. People not living in fear? They just might vote for people that advocate decent health care, good schools, and accountability from their leaders.
Do you have a better explanation?
There is nothing as beautiful as a mother breastfeeding her baby. How anyone can take offense at a photo of that or it happening live and in living color in a restaurant, on a park bench, on a bus, or anywhere is beyond my understanding. What are these (the offended ones) people afraid of? Oh, I know! Hearts will soften. People will become less fearful. They will come to understand that the fire and brimstone brought to you from the pulpit of of their church or the bully pulpit of the White House is a bunch of hogwash. We can't have that. People not living in fear? They just might vote for people that advocate decent health care, good schools, and accountability from their leaders.
Do you have a better explanation?
Sorry about the duplicate, after hitting post the message wouldn't clear.
To philos:
Can you explain what you think is the difference, in principle, between your dissent from Tara's position here, in this blog, and the dissent at facebook from the various users who disagree with their position? Couldn't your arguement be used, in principle, to say you shouldn't be here offering dissent to Tara's position?
I think you need to understand that mature and reasonable people value dissent, and that our cultures (in the US and in Canada) also place some value on dissent. Those parties involved who disagree with Facebook's position have just as much business expressing themselves as you have expressing your opinion.
Of course, you ought to keep in mind that, if the opinions you express are foolish enough, we will judge you for those opinions. This doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to express them, but it does mean you should consider exactly what reputation you want to earn for yourself.
Adrian
I've joined the group.
Depressingly it seems like there's a fair number of mothers in that group who range from slightly doubtful to completely paranoid about vaccines. I know if I dared to pipe up they'd tell me to pipe down again because I don't have kids and hence cannot possibly know anything about vaccinating them.
I've always wondered if the "conservative" freak-out about breastfeeding is from the lingering assumption that participants in public society are "supposed" to be men (and someone who is breastfeeding a child is most likely a woman).
You know, that whole Rosseau thing about a good citizen by necessity being a man who has a wife who stays at home and does all that... wifely stuff.
>.>
*wanders off for more coffee, in search of coherence*
Adrian, either you are truly the most forgiving and nicest guy in the civilized world or you didn't read Philos' full post. What he says is most certainly not an expression of simple dissent. His comment underscores the fact that he has his mysogynistic little head very far up his anus.
Arrgh! that would be "misogynistic" for those of you that can spell.
Just joined the protest group. They appear to have over 1000 photos up; it'd be tricky for facebook to delete these, so hopefully facebook will see sense.
PS; philos, you're an arsehole.
This uproar is lame. Facebook is a private enterprise which is perfectly capable of enforcing the rules that people agree to by joining it. You aren't entitled to a Facebook account, and not letting people put up breastfeeding pictures isn't some type of social statement, it is just the logical extension of the 'no nudity' rule. If they had to decide on a case-by-case basis which pictures were allowable, it would be chaotic. It isn't like they specified that certain types of nudity were OK as long as they were non-sexual; rather they just established a blanket rule so that they wouldn't have to worry about discerning intent and getting into arguments with people. The issue isn't whether breastfeeding is 'a beautiful, natural act,' because that is subjective. It is whether they are going to be consistent or not. Facebook is a totally free website that provides an invaluable service for millions of people. Can't you people find better stuff to be outraged about?
Brian,
They're *already* doing this on a case-by-case basis, by defining just what constitutes "nudity" (IOW, just how much skin can be bared) and what crosses the line into "obscene." If you look at some of the pictures on there, in many you can't see any more breast that would be bared by a girl in an ordinary bikini--so which is "nude" and "obscene," and therefore deserving of removal?
You say it's "lame" and as a guy, I can see why you might think so. But as a woman who breastfed two kids and has some understanding already of the prejudices breastfeeding moms already face--the annoyed glares; the requests to "cover up more" from other people in a public place, abhorred that their young child may see it and be scarred for life or something; the difficulty in finding a semi-private place to nurse or, heaven forbid, even pump milk when you're away from home. The latest Facebook idiocy is just another symptom of the broader idiocy present in society when it comes to this issue--and I don't think there's anything wrong with drawing attention to it and being "outraged." Never fear--I have plenty of outrage to spare for other topics.
Hey Brian, if you'd bother to read the Facebook terms, you'd see there is no "no nudity" rule. Facebook is claiming this rule applies:
which means they're deeming breastfeeding 'vulgar' or 'obscene.'
Brian,
Yes, facebook is a private enterprise that is perfectly capable of enforcing the rules that people agree to by joining it. Perhaps you could point out to me in those rules where pictures of breastfeeding is prohibited. You see, I just read them, and there is not "no nudity" rule to be logically extended. There is a rule against "obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit" content, but I and many others here are hard pressed to understand how one could deem breastfeeding to be obscene.
I could understand a blanket "no nipple rule", or even a "no female nipple rule" (although that would permit PZ Mearies nipple) but neither seems to be in their TOSs. Of course, as was pointed out in another forum, breastfeeding doesnt expose the nipple, since thats actually in the baby's mouth. So how does an image of a woman breastfeeding differ from an image of a woman in a bikini? All youre really seeing is the sides and top of the breast in each case.
Oh noes, they has a rule... And they make a shitload of advertising revenue off our patronage. So, why shouldn't we try to get them to change the rules?
If they delete the petition group, I propose we all replace our main profile picture with a breastfeeding baby (the BabyTalk magazine cover would do nicely.) Deleting 20,000+ accounts would generate some interesting press.
There must be a better way to get through to these people. Let's try this:
Breastfeed. It was good enough for Jesus.
Anthony,
BWAAAAAhahahahahahaahah! :-)
I nearly spit Pepsi and fell off my chair reading that! Oh boy, would that make the fundies heads explode! Imagine them trying to wrap their poor excuses for grey matter around that ... too precious! Someone should make T-Shirts, print posters, and make you rich!
Rich B.
If you want to add a link to my nipple too, I'm cool with that. It's Live Journal Approved!
Well, ok.
Ladies of the Liberal Ilk, let's see some breasts.
Yes, Philos, they have a rule - and they are going out of their way to interpret that rule in the most ludicrous and hurtful way possible.
You would seem to be of that species which most decent human beings call a "sexist pig" Porcus intolerans feminae.
She's had 3 children - so, she is obviously no stranger to lying down
You are also an offensive sexist pig, and you can go to Hell. Give the Devil my regards.
Hi Tara
I've already made a similar comment about this on Janet's blog. But here goes.
I have just briefly considered joining the group. I have decided not to make myself look like an idiot by doing so.
Here's why: The group has over 1000 photos of breastfeeding. So clearly the ongoing existence of the group belies the fact that facebook are continuing to stupidly delete breastfeeding photos (and I agree that it's stupid to do so).
You link to the letter that Karen was sent. In the middle of that letter is this:
"Additionally, we do not allow users to send threatening, obscene, and harassing messages"
Now this may just be boilerplate account deletion notice. But maybe the problem here is that facebook did something dumb (delete breastfeeing photos), and this person has completely overreacted in a way that is not consistent with reasonable dissent on the issue and has had her account deleted. Other people who also operate outside of reasonable and polite protest also have their accounts deleted.
The ongoing existence of the protest group and it's 1000 pictures point to facebook having learned it's lesson. Thus my joining the group is a redundant and pointless activity.
PS. Please stop feeding that troll everybody
Feel free to make your own social network that features white woman complaining about another unimportant thing on the internet.
To Fernando Magyar:
It seemed likely to me that "philos" is an adolescent. Every once in a while, when dealing with a child, ignoring the hostility and trying to make a reasoned argument can work. Looks like it didn't work, this time. We'll just have to hope he'll grow out of it, eventually.
Adrian
I think we;ve hot all wrong that the reason breastfeeding causes a freakout is that breasts are sexualized. Sure, this is at least a small part of what's going on, but I thing the real reason breastfeeding might be unsettling to some is that it clearly shows humans are *animals*. How dare you breastfeed and show that humans are capable of nurturing their own young just like other mammals! Folks might actually start thinking that we're actually *related* to them. Fall of civilization comes after that.
Brian and philos:
If you're older than about 12 years old, you shouldn't need the difference between "what's allowed" and "what's right" explained to you. The fact that you apparently do is shameful.
Let's see here...
"This is moronic" - check.
"This is simply an extension of Medieval, misogynistic oppression of women" - check.
"Facebook has its head up its butt" - check.
"I'm somewhat concerned about the other stuff the Facebook EMail implies" - check.
"philos is an ass, and probably about 12 or 13 years old" - check.
Looks like everything I wanted to say was already said much more eloquently.
Oh, except this:
I just love how Facebook ends its EMail with "Thanks for understanding."
Jerks.
That's possible, but she's copied the messages she sent to Facebook and those she sent back on her blog (and this was before the whole uproar), such as this one, and I don't see anything out of sorts.
But that's not evidence that they've changed their policy--just that they can't keep up with thousands of people posting their pictures, which was rather the point of the group...
The ongoing existence of the protest group and it's 1000 pictures point to facebook having learned it's lesson. Thus my joining the group is a redundant and pointless activity.
Private v. Public.
That should end this debate. Facebook is a private organization owned and operated by people who have poured their heart and soul into it. The problem is that people find this offensive, not that Facebook realizes this fact. Do not bend out on Facebook, instead, work to educate and change our culture so that Facebook doesn't need this rule in order to please their customers.
I hate to see a good cause be fought for with poor arguments.
Stop it with breastfeeding is natural. That's beside the point. Natural is not synonymous with good. Sometimes it is, others times its not. It just so happens that in this case natural is better (in most cases) than the alternative, formula.
Newsflash: BREAST HAVE MORE THAN ONE FUNCTION. They stimulate male hormones.
Perhaps people believe that males can somehow switch off our hormones because a breast has a nursing baby attached to it. Not a chance. Right or wrong, men are still drawn towards the engorged form. My bet is that you will find men bigger advocates than women for breastfeeding for this reason, even if you don't like such sexually charged advocacy.
Despite the sexual attraction role of breasts, the merits of breast feeding are without question, and should supersede any prudishness that men and indeed women may harbor. And if it is true that nursing mother pictures increase acceptance of nursing, than that's good cause to fight for it. Women's reluctance to breastfeed is (in part) because they are acutely aware of it's effect on men, and that reluctance must be overcome.
But please, let's not ignore the 500lb gorilla. Women's breasts have a sexual function too. (Sorry PZ, not yours)
Hollywood_Freaks:
If you'd spent two or three seconds thinking about something other than maintaining the status quo, you'd have realized that WE are some of Facebook's customers, and we're not fucking pleased by this rule (or rather, this particular way of interpretting/enforcing this rule.) They have to contend with us, too. And, contrary to what you've indicated, dignified silence is not an effective strategy for change.
As for the cultural change you recommend, cultural change is impossible without public action. This is a kind of public action. Why don't you hop on board, instead of resisting it? Failing that, why don't you go troll somewhere else?
Doug:
You're right to criticize the naturalistic fallacy, however, I think you're casting your net far too widely. That breasts have the function of feeding babies is extremely relevant to whether breasts displayed in the context of feeding babies ought to be permitted. Presumably, the aim of obscenity rules/laws is to somehow suppress (at least some forms of) sexual expression. Since breastfeeding is baby-feeding and NOT a form of sexual expression, breastfeeding ought to get a pass on any accusation of obscenity.
Even more importantly, to be justified, any rule of this kind needs sufficient reason (minimally, a reason) in its favor. I have not heard any good reason to forbid pictures of breastfeeding. The only thing I've heard that is even intended to be a reason is just what you said, "Perhaps people believe that males can somehow switch off our hormones because a breast has a nursing baby attached to it. Not a chance. Right or wrong, men are still drawn towards the engorged form." Now, this is truly asinine, and I hope you'll see why. To accept this as a reason would be to place a restriction on the behavior of women (sharing photos of themselves breastfeeding) based on the expected response of men. God forbid that men should actually be held responsible for their own reactions. It's not an issue of "hormones" as you seem to think. It's an issue of self-control. Total bummer, I know: but if you want gender equality (and I do) you need to start giving up some of that male privilege.
I agree with you, and I think that makes a good argument.
Hormones are part of the equation. Facebook is an online community, not a restaurant, mall, or public area. Self control doesn't apply in the same way. Young boys will go online and lust after pictures of women breastfeeding their children.
Unfortunately there are plenty of tightly wound people who believe that any exposure of human sexuality is harmful to budding youthful minds. And they will be the ones hounding facebook for action.
So what better way of halting this concept of obscenity than for facebook to advocate for the publishing the pictures of breastfeeding women. The question is will they take the correct path.
"Newsflash: BREAST HAVE MORE THAN ONE FUNCTION. They stimulate male hormones."
Doug go spend a week on a beach in the South of France, where nearly all women will be topless, grow up and get over it.
sheesh!
boys will go online and lust after pictures of women breastfeeding their children.
Newsflash, "young boys" will lust after a strong breeze. A photo of a breast-feeding baby is less sexual than the Sears catalogue. Deal with it.
Doug,
That is a very western view of it. I have a good male friend from Nigeria who doesn't even notice, much less get sexually excited from, a nude breast. Women in Nigeria are topless all the time so children have access to nutrition any time they need it. Children that see this way of life growing up do not lust after breasts like a bunch of salivating dogs after a steak. Rather than tell women feeding their children to cover up, perhaps we should teach our young boys from a young age that breasts are primarily for feeding babies, not sexual play toys for adult men.
And the last time I checked, Facebook is on the Internet, which is considered public.
they're a private company, they can do what they like, blah blah blah...
First, this isn't true. They can't just arbitrarily invent any rules they like, and even capricious actions can't appear to be racist, for example, or prejudiced in other ways.
second, even if they're acting within the law, we're allowed to have an opinion about the policy they've enforced. It blows. Hiding behind "we can do what we like" doesn't stop people from commenting on their stupid, ignorant, schoolboy rule that appears to have been made up on the fly.
The Toronto Star has an article up today: The Politics of Breastfeeding. There's a nice phrase from a letter to the editor too:
As Star reader Linda Genova wrote in a letter to the editor last week, "I believe that such disgust springs from a fear that normalizing the breast in this way could spoil the immature sexual fantasies on which so much of North American culture depends."
You can see a public picture of a muder person this not mind you are promotes muders.Why so scandal for a nude breast feeding a baby?.This is a social paranoia remember me the Holy Inquisicion of dark medioevo age.
If this is all for the protection of the poor young, lusty boys, then again--why allow bikini pictures? I'd bet dollars to donuts that they're gonna be a lot more turned on by a cute 19-year-old in a bikini than a 35-year-old mom with a baby attached to her breast, if this is just an issue of sexuality and hormones.
Additionally, you accuse me of ignoring the 500 lb gorilla. Yet as has been pointed out, the sexualization of breasts is a cultural thing--in many other areas of the world, no one cares about exposed breasts. So the way to change this is to change the culture, and remove breastfeeding from the sexual connotation--and protests like this (or anything that draws attention to the issue) do play a small role in that.
On a similar note, a piece of news i found:
http://www.adn.es/ciudadanos/20070920/NWS-0195-lactancia-Museo-Prado-pe…
unfortunately i can't find it in English.
The thing is that a woman has been forced to leave by a custodian in the "museo del prado" in Madrid when she decided to feed her child in one of the museum rooms. Her name is Cindy Piccard, maybe googling it would yield more information.
M
For the commenter who said that Canada is more enlightened than the US because breastfeeding is not legally considered obscene, please don't think all us 50 states are like that. Here in Minnesota, breastfeeding in public is specifically not obscene, according to state law, and a woman cannot be convicted of indecent exposure for breastfeeding if her nipple is exposed in the process.
Some states go further; Wisconsin, for instance, explicitly bans interfering with a nursing mother in any place where she and the baby are otherwise authorized to be.
I think Facebook made a mistake with this decision, though as one commenter pointed out, there may be more to the story than we know and Facebook is probably not allowed to tell us that by its own privacy policies.
Newsflash, "young boys" will lust after a strong breeze. A photo of a breast-feeding baby is less sexual than the Sears catalogue. Deal with it.
If women were limited by everything heterosexual males found sexually stimulating, we would never be allowed to be seen. at. all.
What kind of idiot would post a picture on Facebook of them breastfeeding, its pretty bizarre behavior. Whats next people taking a whizz or a dump in the woods?
Facebook has every right to keep private personal behavior that no one else wants to see off their site. Total props to facebook.
Yes I know taking a piss, a dump and breastfeeding are essential for life, but they are things that other people don't enjoy watching, so just deal with it.
I agree with cooler such a disgusting if one should post breastfeeding pic of her to my wall it's just bizarre!!
I really ant to make my facebook so private cause my mom and dd are also in mt friend list so have make a privacy for them to protect from such a rare pics and behaviour from others.