Breastfeeding and Page 3

[nanila]

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.

Comments

[redbird]

The other thing I would add if I was talking to your acquaintance would be to ask if they thought images of naked breasts are always appropriate and inoffensive. And I would give examples of the sort of nakedness that will never appear on page 3 of the Sun.

I think the image this user icon is made from is gorgeous and inspiring; when I brought the poster home my partner said he didn't want it on the wall because he found it disturbing. Which I understood: a lot of people don't want to look at mastectomy scars, even if the woman whose body it is has gotten comfortable with herself. That's a slightly extreme case intended to make the point, but quite a few people complain if they see an old or fat women topless at a beach where nobody is required to wear a shirt.

That of course gets back to the issue of whether women are people in the world, or ornaments for men to enjoy looking at.

[nanila]

And I would give examples of the sort of nakedness that will never appear on page 3 of the Sun.

Like...naked men!

I love your icon. It's very powerful. I hope that, should we ever get to the point where it's socially acceptable for people of any gender to go topless if they wish, that all sorts of people of different shapes and ages would feel comfortable doing so.

[silveradept]

Wow. That can't even see that one context is about a biological process and the other is about being a viewed object? No wonder Facebook is a once-a-week.

[nanila]

Yes. I did a careful cull of FB a couple of years ago, which allowed me to start using it even that frequently. If I could be bothered to do another cull and carefully filter all the content I saw, I might be able to make it a place that I didn't have to brace myself to visit, but the fact is, I've got a perfectly acceptable community here on DW/LJ that I've built up painstakingly over years, and that is where I want to spend my energy.

[silveradept]

That makes the best of sense

[kate]

Right on, sister. *applauds*

[nanila]

Thank you.

[soliano]

Society is too uptight about nursing mums and need to seriously get over it. As to women going topless, if enough of them did, we would all get over it. Quite honestly, I see too many men I think have not business going topless.

[nanila]

Ha! If we wanted to make it equal then we should have all sorts of shapes and ages of women going topless too, which probably isn't what the leery sorts are after. :P

[davidgillon]

Clearly there's no problem with breastfeeding (there may be people who have a problem with breastfeeding, but that's their problem, which is a different matter). I think there is a problem with Page 3, not with the breasts themselves, but with the context within which they're presented, which effectively is News Corp/The Sun saying 'We have an editorial policy to objectify women on Page 3 each day, because we think our male readers are that shallow and who cares what our female readers think', and I don't think that's an appropriate position for a media organisation to hold, and probably not good for society as a whole.

OTOH there's plenty of other things about News Corp/The Sun editorial policy I don't think are healthy for society!

[nanila]

Yes, it's a bit odd for a news outlet to feature breasts as a regular "news" item. Perhaps it's meant to balance out the willy-waving in the rest of the paper.

I don't think anything run by Rupert Murdoch is healthy for society.

[silveradept]

Hearty agreement on Murdoch and the tendency to wave one's penis about in print.

[davidgillon]

Perhaps it's meant to balance out the willy-waving in the rest of the paper.

Roars with laughter :)