f-word and breastfeeding

[slemslempike]

Virtually every time I read an article on the f-word, think "my word, that's a pile of crap" and click through to comments, it turns out to have been written by Abby O'Reilly. Today's was no exception:

Why Facebook's photographic stance is actually perfectly reasonable and in no way anti-breastfeeding.

In particular, I was irritated by the ways she starts out by saying that she doesn't upload photographs of her own naked breasts that she's taken, which leads into the justification that therefore nursing mothers shouldn't upload pictures of their breasts. I hadn't actually been aware of the thing about facebook no-breastfeeding stance. FFS. I am also heartily sick of feminist writing taking a pretence at "reasonableness" and objectivity when actually it's just ill-thought through bullshit.

Comments

[coughingbear]

Yes, I had a very similar response! Also, surely one of the big things feminism has pointed out is that something may look as though it's entirely reasonable and not sexist (or racist or whatever), but when you look at the effects, it is. Just saying that the people formulating the policy didn't mean it to be discriminatory is not a get out clause.

I was tempted to comment and refer them to the great lj kerfuffle over breastfeeding icons, in which these arguments were so very thoroughly thrashed out, but it would involve chasing down links and I am too lazy this morning.

[medland.livejournal.com]

What was the final outcome of that?

[coughingbear]

They agreed that breastfeeding icons are OK (& other 'non-sexualised' nudity): see the Abuse policy here.

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

So why was yonmei, among others, permabanned for having a breastfeeding icon and multiple WOC threatened with banning and told their breastfeeding icons were unacceptable because WOC's aereolas are supposedly too large for white people's standards of "obscenity"?

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

The new owners changed the policy relatively recently. Presumably those who were permabanned could apply to be readmitted? I was one of those threatened with banning, and decided to give in - and probably the majority of breastfeeding women are "obscene" by those standards, though WOC in disproportionate numbers.

[whatho.livejournal.com]

Yonmei did get in touch with them after they overturned the policy to point out that they no longer had any logical (as they saw it) reason to keep her banned. They decided she was to stay banned because she'd been deliberately challenged an LJ policy. That they've since overturned. Because mostly they're knobheads.

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

Ta, I knew yonmei had been "disappeared" and I was assuming the explanation involved some form of lj-based knobheads.

Oh, look, I happen to have the perfect icon for this comment.

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

I've just been back to look at comments - the third one is about nipplegate, and I think it might be someone on my flist - I shall claim association anyway, as it's a great comment! In fact, all the comments are pretty much pointing out what a complete nonsense her article is (much more politely than that, and better than I could have done).

[hafren.livejournal.com]

For me, she ruins any argument she might have now or ever, on anything at all, when she admits in the comments that she used "daguerrotype" to mean what she knew it didn't mean, just because it sounded nice... what sort of journalist is that? What a prat!

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

I do admit that it's a lovely word, but really, even if you didn't care about the meaning precisely (which I do), then it's just confusing in this context.

[metamorphosa.livejournal.com]

Meh. HOW can it be right to remove photos of breastfeeding when it's okay to have icons of women shoving their arse suggestively at the camera??

Okay, see, I know very little about feminism [1] ,and I think I understand what you mean about hiding under the words of 'reasonableness' and objectivity, but what I do know (and I think is different to that) is that discrimination of all kinds is wrong, and that often people are so incredibly blinded by their own deeply-held personal preferences/beliefs/choices about what is and isn't discriminatory that they end up projecting these onto others as 'right' or 'wrong', rather than stepping into other people's shoes and seeing whether they would be discriminatory from *the other's* perspective. I don't know enough about discrimination because I haven't encountered much of it personally nor people who have been subjected to it, and yes I have basic starting points which I'm aware don't really scrape the surface, but I do think people rely - quite rightly - on their subjective feelings as a result of personal discrimination but forget about observing how others may feel discriminated in a way that is different to them. That is why those people (and myself included) should not wave these flags unless what they are saying accounts for those differences.

If that makes no sense, or is offensive in some way, I am sorry because I didn't mean it to be.

[1]I know that is a ridiculously broad and possibly stupid statement but I don't like to claim I know anything about anything until I know enough of it to justify my claim, if that makes sense?

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid I didn't quite understand what you meant there! Perhaps because I wasn't clear myself? I tend to object to people setting themselves up as "reasonable" in this way because feminists have frequently been attacked as inherently unreasonable and hysterical, no matter what their claims. Saying that you are being "reasonable" implies that the other people are being unreasonable, and has some sort of pretence to objectivity, when I don't believe that there is a non-subjective viewpoint. So I felt that this article had an undertone of "calm down, hysterical ladies, I am here to tell you what's what from my standpoint of unimpeachable objectivity", which I dislike.

[metamorphosa.livejournal.com]

Sorry. I thought that might be the case. Things make sense in my head, but very rarely make any sense at all when I write them down or try to voice them. For slight clarification, I do agree with what you said entirely, and was going off on a tangent of thoughts, rather than arguing your point. If I wasn't cold, tired, and stressed, I may have tried to say it another way, but as it is it'll probably sound even more confusing!

But I like hearing your take on the subject, and what other people comment, so I'll keep reading them. :)

[publicansdecoy.livejournal.com]

God, that's a terrible article.

Facebook’s defence has always been that the site does not promote the publication of images that could be considered offensive, including those in which the nipple or the areole is fully displayed. There is no explicit reference made to breastfeeding. Any nipple or areole shot has been subject to a cull.

But apparently:

This isn’t about seeing breasts as abhorrent or breastfeeding as an obscene function; as something that should be prohibited and hidden.

(my emphasis)

So which is it?

-x-

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

She seems to have overlooked the point that the nipple is not inherently offensive or obscene, and that the constant sexualisation and repression of women's bodies even in non-sexual contexts, is something that feminists have quite often had a lot to say about.

ARGH, basically.

[ankaret.livejournal.com]

Ugh, what a horrid, smug article.

Lightning-rodding off onto a minor point (which I seem to be doing a lot lately), I really can't cope with people who think it's cute and intellectual to use words like 'daguerreotype' when what they actually mean is 'digital photo' - it's not using the right word for precision (which I would defend to the death) it's just horrible, cloying pretentiousness and it makes me feel like I've touched cotton wool, which as I may or may not have told you, gives me the dry heaves.

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

I think I remember you saying about cotton wool - I don't have exactly the same thing, but I can imagine, based on the face that if I have any sort of cotton wool or polyester thing near my mouth it makes me really upset in my teeth.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Stupid in so many ways. Are men's nipples also proscribed, do you know?

The 'logic' of this would seem to be: "Person X finds Object Y erotic. Eroticism is offensive. Therefore Object Y should be banned from Facebook." So, we should expect the banning of pictures of hands, feet, lips, earlobes, shoes, gloves, hair, etc., all of which are erotically charged objects for at least some people.

[hafren.livejournal.com]

Yes, I never see that logic without thinking of that exchange from Tartuffe:

TARTUFFE (proffering hankie): Please cover your bosom; I find the sight disturbing.
DORINE: You must be very easily excited; I could see your whole carcass stark naked and it wouldn't have any effect on me.

It's all in the mind, folks....

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

That's a brilliant exchange! Now I want to know more Tartuffe. I don't know any Moliere at all, actually, which is a bit argh because he's one of my grandfather's subjects. (As in academic, not royal, obv.)

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

I suspect not - men's nipples are pure and Godly. Women's nipples are WHORISH.

If I claim that the stupid ads turn me on something rotten, do you think they'd take them away?

[owl]

You'd think they might have noticed what went on with LJ, and why it was a bad idea.

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

I suppose lj's quite a small drop in the internet ocean, so didn't permeate? I hope facebook change their policy too.

[sierra-le-oli.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly. Thank you for putting that into words, all I could summon up this morning was "argh!"

Appropriately enough, I then went onto a lunch where breastfeeding was discussed and one woman in her *late twenties* said she'd seen breastfeeding for the first time only recently. Argh, again.

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen much breastfeeding at all - I don't remember seeing it when I was young, though I know my younger sister was breastfed, so I must have seen it when I was little. I didn't know many people with small children, but I should have seen women feeding children as a perfectly normal part of everyday life, and I didn't.

I wish they were more nuanced words! I keep finding articles that I want to write a response to (there was one on Penny Red about reclaim the night a while back), but by the time I get around to thinking about it properly the moment seems to have passed.

[nineveh-uk.livejournal.com]

but I should have seen women feeding children as a perfectly normal part of everyday life, and I didn't
Well, you may have done and not noticed, because most people breastfeeding in public are likely to do it in non-noticable ways (which don't involve being "discreet" by shoving a ginormous blanket over the torso).

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

Shall we start a "hating Abby O'Reilly" interest here on LJ? She really is an idiot.

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

Just imagine the article she could write about that...

I get the impression that she's quite young (she writes about looking something up for an essay in a comment), and I do really support the f-word giving younger writers a platform and allowing them to set their own agendas etc. I just find it really - disappointing, I guess - that she doesn't seem to think very deeply about what she writes.

[stellanova.livejournal.com]

Yeah, she seems very young to me. Which might explain her painful over-writing - no contractions, never using one word where about four slightly unsuitable ones would do. But possibly she is also just an idiot.

[antisoppist.livejournal.com]

The WTF sentence for me was "I can appreciate that breastfeeding mothers feel that once they have made the decision to nurse their babies they are in some respects isolated from society, largely because of prevailing social attitudes."

Um... I've breastfed 2 children to the age of 2 and a third to 16 months and counting and I hardly think this has isolated me from society. Where does this woman live? As long as you're wearing a two-piece outfit and can hoick the top up, no-one really notices. And after about 6 months you can usually time it or fob them off with breadsticks and bits of banana until you're back home again anyway.

From Abby O'Reilly

[(Anonymous)]

I came across this thread through an Internet search. I initially wasn't going to comment, but I thought it would be worth clarifying a few points, simply because I have read threads attacking me personally here before. I am not going to discuss the minutiae of the original post, as I realise that no-one here is likely to be receptive to anything I say.

Firstly, Slempslempike, you will notice that the format of blog posts on The F Word have changed. You no longer need to click through to the comments section and scroll down the page to determine the contributor. You didn't need to with the post in question. Authors are now identified at the top of the posts. You no longer have a need to read anything I have written.

Secondly, for the benefit of everyone else, a bit more information...I write for The F Word on a voluntary basis. Anyone involved with The F Word from a creative point of view is a volunteer. I blog when I can in addition to my full-time job as a political researcher and out-of-hours job as a freelance writer. This is no harship, and I do generally enjoy it. I am not particularly young. I just turned 25. Am I an idiot? Well, I suppose that depends on your defenition. I always excelled academically, have a good degree from a good university, and am endowed with enough sense and ability to be able to communicate with others both aurally and in writing. This, I understand, is not everything, however, from what I gather here an idiot is an individual who holds an opinion that happens to stand in opposition to your own. Is this feminism in action?

The purpose of the blog is to provoke discussion. I can only write from my own perspetive as it would be disingenous of me to write something I don't believe in order to intentionally please readers. That said, I don't set out to intentionally displease readers, I just write from a subjective perspecitve, and genuinely look forward to reading comments. Sometimes the very best comments are those displaying a differing viewpoint. Surely feminism is about embracing a diversity of opinions? My writing is not perfect, and at the same time as using it as a forum to articulate my opinions I try to write in a humorous and entertaining way. I may not always achieve this, but it's something I enjoy doing, or trying to do. The use of the word "daguerreotype," for example, may not have been perfect, but neither was it particularly misleading nor deflective. To suggest it was really obfuscates the main issues.

When I found this I wasn't upset or angry or even that bothered, just deflated. Considering that I strongly believe in the pursuit of women's rights and have, over the last few years, sacrificed a lot of my personal time in order to write for The F Word, I find it ludicrous that so much vitriol would be directed against me as an individual for doing nothing more than sharing my personal perspective. Women are vicitims of so much injustice. We still don't get the top jobs, the top salaries, the recognition that we deserve, and yet (as displayed by this thread) instead of women joining in solidarity they are taking recourse to insulting people who ultimately want the same as them. So call me a 'prat,' an 'idiot' and, by all means, establish an Abby O'Reilly hate campaign. If you honestly believe that would be the best way to channel your energies, go ahead. I am perfectly receptive to criticism of my opinions, but not when it digresses to petty and downright childish personal attacks because they just seem, well, needless.

Re: From Abby O'Reilly

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

I think it's pretty well-known that the f-word is not a professional site. I don't think that that means that the articles posted there shouldn't be subject to criticism. Many of the people who post in this thread write or do other creative work on an unpaid basis, but do not think that this renders their work unimpeachable. I am not criticising your work because it doesn't come up to some professional standard - rather, I am comparing it to other blogs I read, which are also written on a voluntary basis, fitting the time in around jobs, family responsibilities and other commitments, but which still manage to present an intelligent commentary on their chosen topic.

It is not the fact that your opinion is different from ours that we are viewing as idiotic, but the fact that this opinion does not appear to be very well thought-out, and is poorly supported. Your academic background is irrelevant to our feelings about the article that you have written. The examples from upthread show the specific points better: the lack of consideration of the broader context for Facebook's policy decision, the unthinking acceptance of the definition of 'obscene' without noting how it is specificially women's bodies that are more often judged to be obscene, the lack of awareness of how this has a greater impact on women of colour.

Criticism of political writing (regardless of whether or not it is undertaken as paid work) is indeed feminism in action. The idea of blindly "embracing a diversity of opinions", regardless of what those opinions might be, is not a useful form of feminism to me. I support your right to have any opinion you choose, but this does not mean that I will necessarily "embrace" it, or that I won't criticise it.

To clarify, I am not saying that you should not hold opinions that are different from mine, or that you should not write articles, or that the f-word should not publish them. I am saying that, as a feminist reader, I find your articles disappointing. No-one wants articles written purely as a crowd pleaser, but frankly, this article came across as a superficial apology for Facebook's anti-feminist policy and practice.

The comment about adding "hating Abby O'Reilly" as an interest refers to one of the functions of the livejournal site, where users can list topics that interest them, and also references an in-joke among some of the members. None of us have the intention of starting a "hate campaign" against you, and I apologise that it has come across so nastily.

I do not hate you, or want to stop you from writing. I am mostly exasperated that what could be interesting and useful feminist articles are, in my opinion, neither. Had I realised that you would read this post, I would have used a less dismissive tone, but I would still have made the same criticisms. The post was written primarily to express my frustration with your articles with friends, and to discuss our responses with each other.

(Also, mostly a side note - I read the f-word using the lj feed, and the authors' names don't come up on that. I included the information about clicking through in my post partly to say that I had had taken issue with the article before seeing who had written it.)