Log in

No account? Create an account
Sauntering Vaguely Downward [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Mad Scientess Jane Expat

Serious Business | Flickr
Bounty Information | Wanted Dead or Alive: Mad Scientess Nanila
Deeds of Derring-Do | Full of Wild Inaccuracies and Exaggerations

Breastfeeding and Page 3 [20150126|14:10]
Mad Scientess Jane Expat
[Tags|, , , , ]
[the weather today is |loathing facebook. still.]

A casual acquaintance of mine made a post on Facebook that nettled me a bit, but I didn't want to reply to it there fore several reasons. First, I don't know this person well and have no idea how they'd take disagreement. Second, I make it a rule to check Facebook once a week or less. Third, I only use it to like pictures of other people's cats and babies and to make innocuous, supportive and inoffensive comments, because it is a piss-poor platform for nuanced, well-informed interaction. Thus, behold: a journal entry containing the reply I would have made if said comments hadn't been hosted on Facebook.

The post essentially said: Why do feminists think it's okay to be pro-breastfeeding-in-public and simultaneously oppose Page 3 of The Sun newspaper? Are they not contradicting themselves on the subject of bare breasts? (I'm phrasing this more coherently than the original poster did.)

Well. Let us examine the problem with this logic. It assumes that bare breasts are viewed in a manner that is completely context-free. Either they are simply fleshy bits stuck on the front of ladypersons and are totally inoffensive under all circumstances, which is an attitude I would gladly be on board with adopting, or they are totally offensive under all circumstances, which I would not. The social reality is a lot more nuanced than this. If the "feminist" attitude seems contradictory to you, it's because mainstream social attitudes towards these two particular presentations of bare breasts are most frequently contradictory, and often the reverse of what one might expect (e.g. the first is offensive and the second is not). Thus, the answer to the question is that there isn't a contradiction in adopting such attitudes, because the assumption that all mammary presentations are equal in the eyes of society is wrong.

Below lies my personal view on this glandular conundrum:
I identify as a feminist and I find neither of these boob presentations offensive. The first is a no-brainer for me, not least because I'm a breastfeeding mum. Despite what I'd like to believe in theory - that a breast being used to feed a baby is being presented in an entirely innocent way - I feel the immense social pressure to breastfeed in an innocuous manner, and thus I always try to find a discreet place in which to do it and ensure that I'm covered. It would be much easier if I could just whip out a nipple and let baby latch, of course, but I don't really want to be stared at whilst I'm feeding him, so I don't do that. I would be delighted if breastfeeding stopped being such a polarising subject, but until social attitudes change pretty drastically, I don't see it happening.

On the subject of Page 3: I don't think the breasts themselves are offensive. Taking it a step further, I think that the circumstances under which they are photographed and presented are far better than what was being proposed to replace them. The owners of the breasts are compensated (I can't comment upon whether or not the amount of the compensation should be deemed adequate), but most importantly, they have consented to be photographed. The idea that replacing these images with "candid" (i.e. non-consensual) photos of celebrities in states of undress would somehow be a step forward for feminism was baffling to me. Some of the opposition to Page 3 that I've encountered also strikes me as another way to devalue sex work and demean sex workers, which...do we really need more of that?

I know there are those who would ask me, "What if your daughter was on a train and saw a man looking at Page 3?" I can only say that I think it best that she learns that there are images of naked people in the world and that most of the people who view them are wankers.

This entry was originally posted at http://nanila.dreamwidth.org/960917.html. The titration count is at comment count unavailable.0 pKa.

From: cmcmck
2015-01-26 14:57 (UTC)
I suspect that the same guys leering at the tits on page 3 would be the first to whine about a breast feeding mum in a coffee shop and how dreadful it all was.

I'd be less anti Sun page 3 if it wasn't a Murdoch publication and showed a nice looking guy's full frontal bits on page 4, but of course that would be unacceptable and indecent.............

Edited at 2015-01-26 02:57 pm (UTC)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: nanila
2015-01-28 13:30 (UTC)
Or to whinge about any person going topless who wasn't in a narrow age range and of a very specific body type.

Ugh, Rupert Murdoch. I wonder if his justification for the breasts is that it helps to compensate for the willy-waving in the rest of the paper.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: owlfish
2015-01-26 15:54 (UTC)
And then there's the complication of art... [i.e. nude paintings/prints/photographs/sculptures, optionally historic.]
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: nanila
2015-01-28 10:49 (UTC)
The Now Show did a topical skit this week called, "Have I Got Boobs for You". One of the questions was, "Pre-Raphaelite boobs in paintings?" to which the correct answer was, "Good boobs", because "pre-twentieth century boobs: always acceptable". :D
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bryangb
2015-01-26 17:04 (UTC)
Hear hear. (Or should that be "Read, read"?)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: nanila
2015-01-28 13:33 (UTC)
Either way, thank you.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: nanila
2015-01-28 13:36 (UTC)
But I'm not anti Page 3 To Protect The Children, I just don't think boobs constitute news, and I have this naive idea that newspapers are for news

Hahaha. Yeah, it's hard to imagine a justification for breasts being a daily news feature.

I remember idly flicking through television stations whilst staying in a Dutch hotel once, and the channel that had been showing Disney movies abruptly flipped over to a documentary about dominatrices at 10 PM. That was a bit of a shocker!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mysterysquid
2015-01-27 07:55 (UTC)
It's all about context. In one case, it's to feed a child, in the other it's to provide tittiliation for men.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: impix
2015-01-27 17:37 (UTC)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: nanila
2015-01-28 13:32 (UTC)
Yes, I don't understand how the original poster was not seeing the difference that context made to those two scenarios. :/
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: pax_athena
2015-01-28 05:43 (UTC)
They want to replace the pictures with WHAT? I am sorry, my brain has too much trouble computing the idea that this is thought to be a good idea to comment on the rest (although I do have a ton of feelings). Or in short: UGH.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: nanila
2015-01-28 13:32 (UTC)
That was one of the rumours floating about yes. :/ And UGH sums it up very nicely indeed.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)