5 ms·

Breastfeeding women protest outside Facebook offices

18 points by Slimy 15y ago

pron 15y ago
Now this is amazing. Not because of the issue itself (both sides seem pretty idiotic), but because Facebook has become like a government with embassies that people protest against over social rights. Think about it: people are now protesting a (non-democratic) corporation for their social rights. And another thing. This is the internet age, and people insisting on posting their photos in whatever compromising positions for the world to see should be at least somewhat technologically savvy. Why don't they just post their photos on tumblr (with a link on facebook) where they can even post photos of them having sex with their (non-minor) children? When governments ruled the world it was hard to pick up your things and leave. But in the age of the nanny-conglomerates, why not just go to a competitor? I guess the answer is that the market isn't really competitive any more. Rather, it's become (just like in the archaic state-ruled world) segmented into influence blocs. You got a few superpowers, and lots of satellite "states".
- hengli 15y ago
  This is not a new development. People have been protesting corporations for a long time.
  - pron 15y ago
    Absolutely, but over different things like work conditions or blatant discrimination. I think there is something new here. It's a social-cultural issue that in a government would have been handled by the supreme court.
    - Avshalom 15y ago
      How is "blatant discrimination" NOT a social-cultural issue that in a government...
    - rsanders 15y ago
      Or over changing the formula of Coca-Cola. When you feel that the free market does not provide you with an acceptable substitute, it's in your interest to make your problem known. With any luck, you thereby make it in the corporation's interest to change. If not, perhaps you encourage the market to provide an alternative. If they had just silently stopped using Facebook, there's no chance that any change they wanted would occur. That would be idiotic.
- gjm11 15y ago
  > both sides seem pretty idiotic What seems idiotic about the "pictures of breastfeeding infants should be allowed on Facebook" side? (The fact that they don't give up on Facebook and use something else? But their goal isn't just to be able to post their pictures somewhere; they want to be able to participate in Facebook, where for good or ill much of the world's social life happens these days, without censoring themselves in pointless ways; and they want everyone on Facebook to have that freedom. Saying they should go elsewhere instead of protesting at Facebook would be, on a much smaller scale, a bit like saying that people unhappy with their country's government should emigrate rather than protesting at their government.)
  - pron 15y ago
    It's idiotic because it's pointless. I guess some people may be offended by it (after all, it's public!) Say that some people are offended by photos of people eating so Facebook decides to ban those. What's the big deal? It's not like it's racial discrimination or anything.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - icebraining 15y ago
      So, it's idiotic because you personally don't feel it's a big deal?
      - pron 15y ago
        No. It's idiotic because it is actually not a big deal. We have women who like publishing photographs of them breastfeeding their babies, and we have a corporation that thinks some people are offended by said photographs, so they take them down. The women insist on their right to publish said photographs on the very same website owned by the aforementioned corporation, so they stage a public protest. I find it entertaining, but I mostly think it is a nice cultural moment in the history of the West. But it is by no means a big deal.
  - 15y ago
- noja 15y ago
  This is hardly new. People have always protested companies. I wonder whether this protest will have the desired effect. Banning topless and breastfeeding photos leading to topless women descending on FBHQ might not be the stick the protesters are hoping for.
  - pron 15y ago
    But it's certainly great entertainment.
- dsr_ 15y ago
  A woman breastfeeding her baby is not in a compromising position. Comparing it to incest is ridiculously trollish.
  - pron 15y ago
    I am not comparing it to incest. This was hyperbolic! And taking everything so seriously, especially such a minor matter (and it is a minor matter; people in other areas of the world have bigger things to protest other than their right to post breastfeeding pictures on a social network) is also a bit ridiculous.
    - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
      It's not really about Facebook - IMO it's about combatting the harmful assumption that breastfeeding is not a normal part of society. Facebook is merely an element supporting the contrary view. Personally I suspect this to be mainly a USA issue born out of the promotion of women's bodies as sexual objects.
      - canisterman 15y ago
        Assumption is not about role of breastfeeding in society, it's about whenever such public (including public accessible images) demonstration is acceptable. Death is normal part of society, but no sane person will consider posting pictures of decomposing bodies acceptable. (Another hyperbole).
        pbhjpbhj 15y ago
        >Death is normal part of society, but no sane person will consider posting pictures of decomposing bodies acceptable. This was the point someone else tried to make (see my other comment). You've cut the proposition in half. Yes death is a normal (and natural) part of society. Presenting decomposing bodies in public is not generally considered a normal part of civilised society (sky burials aside I guess; though they have their own context). It's that 'a baby feeding in public' is normal. The equivalent is that 'a dead body in a morgue' or 'a dead body in a coffin' is normal.
ck2 15y ago
You can have all pictures of violence you want in America but absolutely no pictures of women taking care of their babies. Society must be held back firmly in the 19th century or the religious right might explode.
kipsfi 15y ago
I guess this may seem insensitive, and I admit, I will never understand, as I'm a young, single, childless male. Why do you need to post these pictures? It's not that I find these pictures offensive, but the odd time I see somebody breastfeeding in public, I do catch myself being slightly thrown off. It seems like a very private thing. Why do you WANT to post these pictures online?
- gallamine 15y ago
  I think part of the point they're protesting is the notion that breastfeeding should be a private, personal thing. These women believe it's normal, natural and there's no reason it shouldn't be public - like if you were to kiss or hug your child in public. I'm torn on the subject. There's plenty of normal, natural things that still should be private, but is nurturing our children one of them?
  - mverwijs 15y ago
    > These women believe it's normal, natural ... That's because it is natural.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
  - kipsfi 15y ago
    I guess that's part of my problem with it. The care of a child is just as natural as the conception of a child. Where do we draw the line? Am I aloud to post pictures of myself urinating? Because that's natural too. Natural != appropriate to show the public.
    - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
      It's the - feeding a baby in public - part that is naturally part of normal civilised society. Urinating in private is similarly a part of normal civilised society. It's confounded by the multiple definitions of natural: here it just means commonplace and ordinary.
Tichy 15y ago
Startup idea: a social network for breastfeeding women :-)
sbornia 15y ago
Oh come on! Why don't they just build a www.breastfeedingpictures.com website if they need to show their photos so hardly?
- rsanders 15y ago
  Why don't you build your own news aggregator site if you need to say ridiculous things so hardly (sic)? edit: I didn't mean this to be just snippy. My point is that the discussion is here, not on his own blog, and he wants to have his opinion heard, so he posts here, not on thingsithinkaboutbreastfeedingpicsonfacebook.com.
methodin 15y ago
I never thought I'd actually agree with Facebook, and even most other instances of this censorship - but I do. These companies have every right to do whatever they want because it is theirs - not yours. You choose to give up those rights by using the service, and despite the fact that you do not agree with it, you said you did by signing up and agreeing with their terms. I'm not disillusioned by joining these services since I completely understand I have to play within their rules. I would expect the potential for backlash at any brick-and-mortar store if I wore a shirt with pictures of breastfeeding or a crude image, but if I did so, it would be under that guise. I would not, then, protest that store if they told me to leave. If you want completely free speech then pay for a website and post all the pictures you want, but to waste your time protesting the rights of a company to say "I don't like these pictures on our servers and brand" is just a ridiculous waste of energy. They have rights just as much as you do but there is no reason they should bend to the will of a small majority of people who are mixing personal pictures with very public ones or who post pictures for shock effect or even out of sheer ignorance.
- vsk27 15y ago
  On the other hand a company's customers can demand whatever they want of them as well. Perhaps saying "we deserve this right" is less correct than "we really want you to allow us to do this"
- icebraining 15y ago
  Nobody is trying to deny the right of Facebook to block what they want. They're trying to convince them - yes, through protest - to change their minds.
- hellweaver666 15y ago
  I'm sure people understand that. I think their point is just to make sure Facebook are aware of how they feel on the subject. You have to remember, it's hard for individuals to get in contact with these big FaceLess companies without making their arguments public, that's why you see so much of this kind of thing these days.
  - 15y ago
slavak 15y ago
This coming from a country where public urination might cause you to become a registered sex-offender[1]. The United States has a long tradition of enmity towards displays of sexuality or the human body. People getting shot in the face or being thrown off the roof of a skyscraper is just wholesome fun for the whole family, though. [1]http://www.economist.com/node/14164614 http://www.economist.com/node/14164614
redtigerlily 15y ago
Britain has the worst breastfeeding rates in Europe, USA aren't doing much better either. In short, this is due to the introduction of commercially available formula milk, and breastfeeding becoming "unfashionable". As you probably know, breastmilk is the very best thing that you can give a baby, it has a ridiculous amount of benefits. In order for more women to choose to breastfeeding over formula feeding it needs to become normalised again. In order to normalise breastfeeding people have to be exposed to it more so that it is not weird and so that they are not shocked by it. It should not be a private thing, it should be a sociable thing like it is in many other countries around the world. They don't remove pictures of women flashing all of their cleavage or prancing around in pants with their hands over their boobs. THAT is offensive (and slightly slutty). Breastfeeding is definetely not. Breastfeeders are angry because they feel that by banning images of breastfeeding women (most of which don't even feature nipples) facebook is communicating the wrong moral messages. As facebook has such a large impact on society, it is very important that they play their part in helping to promote breastfeeding, and not making it seem an offensive & disgusting thing that should be censored. If facebook was run by mums and not adolescent boys then this wouldn't be happening.

18 points by Slimy 15y ago

pron 15y ago

Now this is amazing. Not because of the issue itself (both sides seem pretty idiotic), but because Facebook has become like a government with embassies that people protest against over social rights. Think about it: people are now protesting a (non-democratic) corporation for their social rights. And another thing. This is the internet age, and people insisting on posting their photos in whatever compromising positions for the world to see should be at least somewhat technologically savvy. Why don't they just post their photos on tumblr (with a link on facebook) where they can even post photos of them having sex with their (non-minor) children? When governments ruled the world it was hard to pick up your things and leave. But in the age of the nanny-conglomerates, why not just go to a competitor? I guess the answer is that the market isn't really competitive any more. Rather, it's become (just like in the archaic state-ruled world) segmented into influence blocs. You got a few superpowers, and lots of satellite "states".

hengli 15y ago
This is not a new development. People have been protesting corporations for a long time.
- pron 15y ago
  Absolutely, but over different things like work conditions or blatant discrimination. I think there is something new here. It's a social-cultural issue that in a government would have been handled by the supreme court.
  - Avshalom 15y ago
    How is "blatant discrimination" NOT a social-cultural issue that in a government...
  - rsanders 15y ago
    Or over changing the formula of Coca-Cola. When you feel that the free market does not provide you with an acceptable substitute, it's in your interest to make your problem known. With any luck, you thereby make it in the corporation's interest to change. If not, perhaps you encourage the market to provide an alternative. If they had just silently stopped using Facebook, there's no chance that any change they wanted would occur. That would be idiotic.
gjm11 15y ago
> both sides seem pretty idiotic What seems idiotic about the "pictures of breastfeeding infants should be allowed on Facebook" side? (The fact that they don't give up on Facebook and use something else? But their goal isn't just to be able to post their pictures somewhere; they want to be able to participate in Facebook, where for good or ill much of the world's social life happens these days, without censoring themselves in pointless ways; and they want everyone on Facebook to have that freedom. Saying they should go elsewhere instead of protesting at Facebook would be, on a much smaller scale, a bit like saying that people unhappy with their country's government should emigrate rather than protesting at their government.)
- pron 15y ago
  It's idiotic because it's pointless. I guess some people may be offended by it (after all, it's public!) Say that some people are offended by photos of people eating so Facebook decides to ban those. What's the big deal? It's not like it's racial discrimination or anything.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - icebraining 15y ago
    So, it's idiotic because you personally don't feel it's a big deal?
    - pron 15y ago
      No. It's idiotic because it is actually not a big deal. We have women who like publishing photographs of them breastfeeding their babies, and we have a corporation that thinks some people are offended by said photographs, so they take them down. The women insist on their right to publish said photographs on the very same website owned by the aforementioned corporation, so they stage a public protest. I find it entertaining, but I mostly think it is a nice cultural moment in the history of the West. But it is by no means a big deal.
- 15y ago
noja 15y ago
This is hardly new. People have always protested companies. I wonder whether this protest will have the desired effect. Banning topless and breastfeeding photos leading to topless women descending on FBHQ might not be the stick the protesters are hoping for.
- pron 15y ago
  But it's certainly great entertainment.
dsr_ 15y ago
A woman breastfeeding her baby is not in a compromising position. Comparing it to incest is ridiculously trollish.
- pron 15y ago
  I am not comparing it to incest. This was hyperbolic! And taking everything so seriously, especially such a minor matter (and it is a minor matter; people in other areas of the world have bigger things to protest other than their right to post breastfeeding pictures on a social network) is also a bit ridiculous.
  - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
    It's not really about Facebook - IMO it's about combatting the harmful assumption that breastfeeding is not a normal part of society. Facebook is merely an element supporting the contrary view. Personally I suspect this to be mainly a USA issue born out of the promotion of women's bodies as sexual objects.
    - canisterman 15y ago
      Assumption is not about role of breastfeeding in society, it's about whenever such public (including public accessible images) demonstration is acceptable. Death is normal part of society, but no sane person will consider posting pictures of decomposing bodies acceptable. (Another hyperbole).
      - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
        >Death is normal part of society, but no sane person will consider posting pictures of decomposing bodies acceptable. This was the point someone else tried to make (see my other comment). You've cut the proposition in half. Yes death is a normal (and natural) part of society. Presenting decomposing bodies in public is not generally considered a normal part of civilised society (sky burials aside I guess; though they have their own context). It's that 'a baby feeding in public' is normal. The equivalent is that 'a dead body in a morgue' or 'a dead body in a coffin' is normal.

ck2 15y ago

You can have all pictures of violence you want in America but absolutely no pictures of women taking care of their babies. Society must be held back firmly in the 19th century or the religious right might explode.

kipsfi 15y ago

I guess this may seem insensitive, and I admit, I will never understand, as I'm a young, single, childless male. Why do you need to post these pictures? It's not that I find these pictures offensive, but the odd time I see somebody breastfeeding in public, I do catch myself being slightly thrown off. It seems like a very private thing. Why do you WANT to post these pictures online?

gallamine 15y ago
I think part of the point they're protesting is the notion that breastfeeding should be a private, personal thing. These women believe it's normal, natural and there's no reason it shouldn't be public - like if you were to kiss or hug your child in public. I'm torn on the subject. There's plenty of normal, natural things that still should be private, but is nurturing our children one of them?
- mverwijs 15y ago
  > These women believe it's normal, natural ... That's because it is natural.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- kipsfi 15y ago
  I guess that's part of my problem with it. The care of a child is just as natural as the conception of a child. Where do we draw the line? Am I aloud to post pictures of myself urinating? Because that's natural too. Natural != appropriate to show the public.
  - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
    It's the - feeding a baby in public - part that is naturally part of normal civilised society. Urinating in private is similarly a part of normal civilised society. It's confounded by the multiple definitions of natural: here it just means commonplace and ordinary.

Tichy 15y ago

Startup idea: a social network for breastfeeding women :-)

sbornia 15y ago

Oh come on! Why don't they just build a www.breastfeedingpictures.com website if they need to show their photos so hardly?

rsanders 15y ago
Why don't you build your own news aggregator site if you need to say ridiculous things so hardly (sic)? edit: I didn't mean this to be just snippy. My point is that the discussion is here, not on his own blog, and he wants to have his opinion heard, so he posts here, not on thingsithinkaboutbreastfeedingpicsonfacebook.com.

methodin 15y ago

I never thought I'd actually agree with Facebook, and even most other instances of this censorship - but I do. These companies have every right to do whatever they want because it is theirs - not yours. You choose to give up those rights by using the service, and despite the fact that you do not agree with it, you said you did by signing up and agreeing with their terms. I'm not disillusioned by joining these services since I completely understand I have to play within their rules. I would expect the potential for backlash at any brick-and-mortar store if I wore a shirt with pictures of breastfeeding or a crude image, but if I did so, it would be under that guise. I would not, then, protest that store if they told me to leave. If you want completely free speech then pay for a website and post all the pictures you want, but to waste your time protesting the rights of a company to say "I don't like these pictures on our servers and brand" is just a ridiculous waste of energy. They have rights just as much as you do but there is no reason they should bend to the will of a small majority of people who are mixing personal pictures with very public ones or who post pictures for shock effect or even out of sheer ignorance.

vsk27 15y ago
On the other hand a company's customers can demand whatever they want of them as well. Perhaps saying "we deserve this right" is less correct than "we really want you to allow us to do this"
icebraining 15y ago
Nobody is trying to deny the right of Facebook to block what they want. They're trying to convince them - yes, through protest - to change their minds.
hellweaver666 15y ago
I'm sure people understand that. I think their point is just to make sure Facebook are aware of how they feel on the subject. You have to remember, it's hard for individuals to get in contact with these big FaceLess companies without making their arguments public, that's why you see so much of this kind of thing these days.
- 15y ago

slavak 15y ago

This coming from a country where public urination might cause you to become a registered sex-offender[1]. The United States has a long tradition of enmity towards displays of sexuality or the human body. People getting shot in the face or being thrown off the roof of a skyscraper is just wholesome fun for the whole family, though. [1]http://www.economist.com/node/14164614 http://www.economist.com/node/14164614

redtigerlily 15y ago

Britain has the worst breastfeeding rates in Europe, USA aren't doing much better either. In short, this is due to the introduction of commercially available formula milk, and breastfeeding becoming "unfashionable". As you probably know, breastmilk is the very best thing that you can give a baby, it has a ridiculous amount of benefits. In order for more women to choose to breastfeeding over formula feeding it needs to become normalised again. In order to normalise breastfeeding people have to be exposed to it more so that it is not weird and so that they are not shocked by it. It should not be a private thing, it should be a sociable thing like it is in many other countries around the world. They don't remove pictures of women flashing all of their cleavage or prancing around in pants with their hands over their boobs. THAT is offensive (and slightly slutty). Breastfeeding is definetely not. Breastfeeders are angry because they feel that by banning images of breastfeeding women (most of which don't even feature nipples) facebook is communicating the wrong moral messages. As facebook has such a large impact on society, it is very important that they play their part in helping to promote breastfeeding, and not making it seem an offensive & disgusting thing that should be censored. If facebook was run by mums and not adolescent boys then this wouldn't be happening.