California breastfeeding picture controversy

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Jun 26, 2014 5:11 am UTC

mobiusstripsearch wrote:Politics was about men in the same way that breastfeeding was about women. (Always with exceptions. Please don't say I'm denying Catherine the Great.)
You're not just denying Catherine the Great, you're simply woefully ignorant of how anthropologically inaccurate you are being here.

mobiusstripsearch wrote:All of which is to say: Breasts aren't seen as sexual because of weird political ideas. Breasts are seen as sexual because of our biology, which associates healthy mammaries with good child-bearing prospects. There are other cultures with other ideas. That is not by itself sufficient reason to say that our society's ideas are wrong.
You've mistaken 'wrong' for 'primarily based on culture'. You've also seemingly ignored nearly everything else in this thread.

CorruptUser wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:I would never argue that culture isn't affected by environment, but the fact that you see varieties of cultures (sexual, etc) popping up in varieties of environments should tell you something about how environment isn't the sole determinate in culture.


I'd say it parallels biological evolution. Random memetic mutations occur, environment pushes the memes into whatever is most efficient for that environment, but the path that it takes is not set it stone or anything. Cultural atavisms can exist, especially when there is little environmental pressure to remove them. Environment changes, culture is exposed to new pressures. Culture interacts with another culture in strange ways.

If the environment is such that equal rights for the sexes provides a huge advantage over sexism, such as "modern society" where women can acquire skills that are useful due to finesse and intelligence being amplified far more than strength is, the "modern society" will displace the "backwards society" that had developed in a place where finesse wasn't nearly as important as brute strength.
Sure, I suppose. The thing is, what determines a cultural more is less to do with environment, I'd say, than with preexisting cultural mores. There are agrarian societies in all environs, and hunter societies in all environs, and violent pillaging societies in all environs, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if some biomes promote certain social behaviors (hard to farm if you live in the Sahara, but then, one can always herd camels...), but the sexual division of labor is not as black and white as people seem hellbent on making it. This notion that we've evolved for men to go hunt while women gather berries is a gross oversimplification of a fairly complicated reality. Which isn't to say it ISN'T true for some societies.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 26, 2014 5:47 am UTC

Evolution happens over generations. So too with cultures. It's not like the environment changed to the point where egalitarianism was the most advantageous meme, and then *poof*, everyone started holding hands and singing Kumbaya. It took decades after Emancipation for the Civil Rights movement to gain momentum, and only became successful around the time the racist old farts finally died off.

That's part of the problem people ignore with places like Iraq and Afghanistan; it takes decades upon decades for people to change enough to allow for things like women's rights and free religion.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:49 am UTC

mobiusstripsearch wrote:It might be that different groups of humans are biologically different. (Which really ties into Nicholas Wade's recent book "A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History," a topic that deserves its own thread.)

I only note that women and men are biologically different (re: the X and Y chromosomes) and that, in almost every human society, men and women were socially different. Men have been in charge of politics since the days when men hunted while women watched the children and gathered. It's not that for thousands of years men dominated the political scene and created this weird idea that breasts are sexy things. Politics was about men in the same way that breastfeeding was about women. (Always with exceptions. Please don't say I'm denying Catherine the Great.)

It's different now. (For one, women can have children live to adulthood without nearly as much effort as it used to take. The labor/breastfeeding stage of life is a much smaller fraction of women's lives than it used to be.) Women can do what used to be exclusive to men (like politics) and men can (increasingly) raise children in ways only women could.

All of which is to say: Breasts aren't seen as sexual because of weird political ideas. Breasts are seen as sexual because of our biology, which associates healthy mammaries with good child-bearing prospects. There are other cultures with other ideas. That is not by itself sufficient reason to say that our society's ideas are wrong.

Men can have XX chromosomes, women can have XY chromosomes, and both men and women can have other combinations like X0 and XXY and XYY and XXX.

But apart from that, even if we disregard how biologically ignorant you're being, and even if we also disregard how ignirant you are of political history, there remains the fact of numerous cultures where breasts were and are not so sexualized that they must be covered.

Whatever crackpot theory you want to put forward about the history of politics and titties, you'll at the very least have to explain male-dominated societies where exposed breasts are seen as normal.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby morriswalters » Thu Jun 26, 2014 2:03 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:It's not like the environment changed to the point where egalitarianism was the most advantageous meme, and then *poof*, everyone started holding hands and singing Kumbaya. It took decades after Emancipation for the Civil Rights movement to gain momentum, and only became successful around the time the racist old farts finally died off.
WTF? Spoilered for being so far off topic.
Spoiler:
Do we live on the same planet? What in Kirk's name makes you believe that racist old farts died off without teaching their progeny to hate. But they also taught them to be discrete. Racism is alive and thriving. It's just better hidden.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 26, 2014 2:16 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:I would never argue that culture isn't affected by environment, but the fact that you see varieties of cultures (sexual, etc) popping up in varieties of environments should tell you something about how environment isn't the sole determinate in culture.


It's not the wierdest of ideas...geopolitics is the idea that politics are primarily shaped by your environment.

Everything has causes. It's an infinite chain all the way back...but at an intermediate level, ascribing cause to an environmental effect is often reasonably accurate and useful. Certainly, I think it is reasonable to believe that we can improve our culture by improving the environment in which we live.

As for sexualization being environment driven, I seem to recall that foot fetishes historically rose and fell in conjunction with disease rates. Seems like probably the most straightforward case for it.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 26, 2014 2:21 pm UTC

Spoiler:
Oh, racism is indeed alive, but it IS slowly dying. The fact that the racists HAVE to hide it is evidence of that. Each generation is less racist than the previous one. Let's say 60% of GREATEST EVER Generation are racist, but the racists don't get to pass on their racism 100% of the time. If 75% of a racist's children will be racist, 45% of boomers and 34% of GenXers and 25% of millennials will be racist. But many of the GREATEST EVER are still around, so a lot more than 25% of society will be racist.

Notice how racist/homophobic/sexist your grandparents are/were. Compare that to your parents. Are your parents "better"? My grandfather is rather racist, my mother is slightly racist, my Aunt is a little better than my gramps while my Uncle isn't racist AFAIK. My parents oppose same-sex marriage. I lukewarmly support it. I find Transsexuality to be a bit creepy; my kids won't (yes I WILL be the racist old fart in 50 years time). But they will be freaked out by cyborgs, my grandkids won't but they will be freaked out by genetically enhanced dolphins.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jun 26, 2014 3:16 pm UTC

Systematic oppression doesn't vanish from society just because individuals are no longer explicitly bigoted. Structural racism is possible even if 0% of a population is actively racist.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby omgryebread » Thu Jun 26, 2014 3:58 pm UTC

[
mobiusstripsearch wrote:It might be that different groups of humans are biologically different. (Which really ties into Nicholas Wade's recent book "A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History," a topic that deserves its own thread.)
You mean the book that claims anthropology isn't scientifically rigorous enough, and in the same breath, bases its entire thesis on supposition and a few scattered studies? The book that claims racism a 20th century innovation. It's Fukuyama dumbed down and smushed together with The Bell Curve.

I only note that women and men are biologically different (re: the X and Y chromosomes) and that, in almost every human society, men and women were socially different.
Men have an X chromosome, and the Y chromosome isn't very important. My point isn't that men and women aren't different, since they obviously are, but that the differences are far more subtle and complex than what you are implying.

Men have been in charge of politics since the days when men hunted while women watched the children and gathered.
There's a decent bit of evidence that egalitarianism is the norm for hunter-gatherer societies, and that agriculture helped contribute to the rise of inequality among the sexes. We can actually see this happening with organizations encouraging farm work among the !Kung.

The point is that cultures are too varied and too complex to make a claim that for some reason, female chests are sexual characteristics that are covered for biological reasons(??) and male chests are not.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:19 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Systematic oppression doesn't vanish from society just because individuals are no longer explicitly bigoted. Structural racism is possible even if 0% of a population is actively racist.


And how many centuries does that structure last? My argument isn't that as soon as an environment changes the culture will instantly adapt, just that it will over the course of generations.

Of course, one of ours goals should be to speed things up...

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10332
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby addams » Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:56 pm UTC

I was thinking.
How is it for Strangers to watch a baby nurse?
What do They see?

It is an animal feeding.
We watch that.

eewweeww.
The poor strangers.
They see an animal feeding and the animal it is feeding on does not die!
That is creepy.

Maybe those that think we should not eat in Public have a point.
Only eat with close friends and family? I am not sure about the latter.

How careful must we be?
To not become the Target of Ridicule.
How careful must we be?

Don't eat and don't feed in Public.
Don't show skin or hair in Public.

Don't talk to strangers.
Don't do a lot of things.

This is how people get some Strange Rules.
Maybe we need Strange Rules.

We do not accomplish much while Practicing Anarchy.

I guess, that is the Good News.
Anarchists don't believe in plans.

Anarchist's plans don't usually work out well.
Do you wonder why? I don't.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Crissa » Thu Jun 26, 2014 5:21 pm UTC

Structural oppression has footprints of centuries. Which is why we need to work to stamp it out.

And it only takes a very small percentage (1-2%) of active racists to tilt an election, paint a party poorly, etc; that's why it's more important to actively root it out where it's observed. Just like it only takes one in a thousand misogynists or MRAs to totally spoil a woman's day.

-Crissa

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 26, 2014 5:37 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:[
mobiusstripsearch wrote:It might be that different groups of humans are biologically different. (Which really ties into Nicholas Wade's recent book "A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History," a topic that deserves its own thread.)
You mean the book that claims anthropology isn't scientifically rigorous enough, and in the same breath, bases its entire thesis on supposition and a few scattered studies? The book that claims racism a 20th century innovation. It's Fukuyama dumbed down and smushed together with The Bell Curve.


Anthropology sometimes could use a little more rigor, but the racism claim is kind of ludicrous. I do not particularly need to trust someone else's interpretations to argue against that...one simply needs to read some older books and what not, and observe that certain attitudes have been around for quite some time. It seems strange that anyone would make such an implausible argument.

I do agree that it's dying, though. I fear that might be straying a little far from the topic...to try to pull it back on, it seems likely that culture is affected by environment, but...environment isn't merely a code word for "genetic". There's a host of factors that contribute to cultural norms, and I suspect that genetics are probably one of the least variable elements, simply because evolution isn't particularly rapid, usually, while culture can change significantly within a single generation.

User avatar
mobiusstripsearch
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:21 am UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby mobiusstripsearch » Fri Jun 27, 2014 3:00 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
mobiusstripsearch wrote:Politics was about men in the same way that breastfeeding was about women. (Always with exceptions. Please don't say I'm denying Catherine the Great.)
You're not just denying Catherine the Great, you're simply woefully ignorant of how anthropologically inaccurate you are being here.


"Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal."

CorruptUser wrote:Evolution happens over generations. So too with cultures. It's not like the environment changed to the point where egalitarianism was the most advantageous meme, and then *poof*, everyone started holding hands and singing Kumbaya. It took decades after Emancipation for the Civil Rights movement to gain momentum, and only became successful around the time the racist old farts finally died off.

That's part of the problem people ignore with places like Iraq and Afghanistan; it takes decades upon decades for people to change enough to allow for things like women's rights and free religion.


Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population. By definition the human population is continuously evolving.

gmalivuk wrote:Men can have XX chromosomes, women can have XY chromosomes, and both men and women can have other combinations like X0 and XXY and XYY and XXX.


Nuance is great -- I love nuance. But this doesn't meaningfully change what I said: "women and men are biologically different".

But apart from that, even if we disregard how biologically ignorant you're being, and even if we also disregard how ignirant you are of political history, there remains the fact of numerous cultures where breasts were and are not so sexualized that they must be covered.


CorruptUser implied that breasts were sexualized because men dominated the political scene. You seemed to agree. I note that the cultures in which breasts did not need covering contains many examples (Monarchical Thailand, Aztec society) where men also dominated the political scene. So: Men dominating the political scene is not a common denominator.

omgryebread wrote:
mobiusstripsearch wrote:It might be that different groups of humans are biologically different. (Which really ties into Nicholas Wade's recent book "A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History," a topic that deserves its own thread.)
You mean the book that claims anthropology isn't scientifically rigorous enough, and in the same breath, bases its entire thesis on supposition and a few scattered studies? The book that claims racism a 20th century innovation. It's Fukuyama dumbed down and smushed together with The Bell Curve.


I'm really not trying to get into a conversation about the merits of a book on race/evolution in a conversation about breastfeeding. Especially not when you've already decided exactly what your opinion on the book is without any room for conversation.

Men have an X chromosome, and the Y chromosome isn't very important. My point isn't that men and women aren't different, since they obviously are, but that the differences are far more subtle and complex than what you are implying.


Right, because I'm only referencing chromosomes in passing. Women and men are biologically different -- and this goes a long way toward explaining why there are no clear examples of Matriarchal societies. Men and women are different, so their roles in society are different.

There's a decent bit of evidence that egalitarianism is the norm for hunter-gatherer societies, and that agriculture helped contribute to the rise of inequality among the sexes. We can actually see this happening with organizations encouraging farm work among the !Kung.


I agree (and the !Kung is an interesting example) but the Hunter-Gatherer days are the epitome of a division of labor between the sexes. Which is all i'm interested in demonstrating.

The point is that cultures are too varied and too complex to make a claim that for some reason, female chests are sexual characteristics that are covered for biological reasons(??) and male chests are not.


What I actually claim:

1) Men and women are biologically different
2) This explains (generally) why men have traditionally ruled societies
3) Breastfeeding in public is not seen as impolite because of men improperly ruling societies*

I'll add:

4) Disliking public breastfeeding or toplessness is not misogyny

*There are interesting conversations about why this is true: What makes the West different where Toplessness is seen as not okay? Christianity? Mass Psychosis? A different standard about propriety from other societies?
"The inward skies of man will accompany him across any void upon which he ventures and will be with him to the end of time." -- Loren Eiseley

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Jun 27, 2014 3:04 am UTC

mobiusstripsearch wrote:"Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal."
Did you not finish the paragraph, or indeed, the sentence?

"Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal, but some authors believe that exceptions are possible, some of them in the past. Matriarchies may also be confused with matrilineal, matrilocal, and matrifocal societies. A few people consider any non-patriarchal system to be matriarchal, thus including genderally equalitarian systems, but most academics exclude them from matriarchies strictly defined."
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
PAstrychef
for all intimate metaphysical encounters
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby PAstrychef » Fri Jun 27, 2014 3:17 am UTC

mobiusstripsearch wrote:What I actually claim:

1) Men and women are biologically different
2) This explains (generally) why men have traditionally ruled societies
3) Breastfeeding in public is not seen as impolite because of men improperly ruling societies*

I'll add:

4) Disliking public breastfeeding or toplessness is not misogyny

*There are interesting conversations about why this is true: What makes the West different where Toplessness is seen as not okay? Christianity? Mass Psychosis? A different standard about propriety from other societies?

1) no new idea here
2) not at all clear how you got here from 1
3) or what the connection is here
4) you're pretty much just wrong here.
Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a puffer fish.

User avatar
mobiusstripsearch
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:21 am UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby mobiusstripsearch » Fri Jun 27, 2014 3:31 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
mobiusstripsearch wrote:"Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal."
Did you not finish the paragraph, or indeed, the sentence?

"Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal, but some authors believe that exceptions are possible, some of them in the past. Matriarchies may also be confused with matrilineal, matrilocal, and matrifocal societies. A few people consider any non-patriarchal system to be matriarchal, thus including genderally equalitarian systems, but most academics exclude them from matriarchies strictly defined."


As I said: "It's not that for thousands of years men dominated the political scene and created this weird idea that breasts are sexy things. Politics was about men in the same way that breastfeeding was about women."

PAstrychef wrote:1) no new idea here
2) not at all clear how you got here from 1
3) or what the connection is here
4) you're pretty much just wrong here.


They're not syllogisms which is why 1-2-3 don't seem logically connected.

On 4: "I don't like breasts in public" is not "I hate women".

I'm going to politely bow out now. Everything I've wanted to say was nicely summed up by a friend, who wrote: "Can we just sort of agree that much of what constitutes modesty in a given culture is pretty arbitrary, but in light of that it's nice not to purposefully offend people when it can be reasonably avoided?"
"The inward skies of man will accompany him across any void upon which he ventures and will be with him to the end of time." -- Loren Eiseley

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Jun 27, 2014 4:10 am UTC

mobiusstripsearch wrote:As I said: "It's not that for thousands of years men dominated the political scene and created this weird idea that breasts are sexy things. Politics was about men in the same way that breastfeeding was about women."
And... I mean, should I just relink the paragraph?
mobiusstripsearch wrote:Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal, but some authors believe that exceptions are possible, some of them in the past. Matriarchies may also be confused with matrilineal, matrilocal, and matrifocal societies. A few people consider any non-patriarchal system to be matriarchal, thus including genderally equalitarian systems, but most academics exclude them from matriarchies strictly defined
How do you conclude that 'politics was about men'?

And by 'breastfeeding was about women', did you mean to say 'reproduction'?

And to your friend; not really? Especially when 'what you consider polite' requires someone else in some cases egregiously inconvenience themselves? Why is the onus of 'polite' not on men to simply look away? The fact that you consider it a woman's job to cover up indicates that yes, you do hold a misogynist view.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
rieschen
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:35 am UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby rieschen » Fri Jun 27, 2014 8:12 am UTC

I think "to provide food for a fellow human being dependant on me for my care" definitely falls into "can not be reasonably avoided".

Everything else requires pretty thorough discussion of what constitutes reasonable - and pretending like naked skin on a woman is, without further argument more or less reasonable than on a man is ... not a sound argument. (E.g: Why the heck do all of my colleagues have to wear long pants in the summer when I can slip on a dress without becoming less "professional"? I'm pretty sure they're sweating just as hard as I am!)

User avatar
PictureSarah
Secretary of Penile Nomenclature
Posts: 4576
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:37 pm UTC
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby PictureSarah » Fri Jun 27, 2014 3:41 pm UTC

mobiusstripsearch wrote:On 4: "I don't like breasts in public" is not "I hate women".


"I don't like breasts in public" is equal to "I don't think that women should be able to feed their babies in public. And since breastfeeding is the healthiest, most physiologically-sound way to feed a baby, and women are (or at least female-bodied people) so far the only ones that are having babies and breastfeeding them, you're basically saying "women with babies should not be in public for any length of time." Women with babies = a fairly large portion of women in a certain age group...so yeah, I feel like saying that "I don't like breasts in public" might not mean "I hate women," but it certainly does mean "breastfeeding women have no place in the public sphere," and that is a pretty anti-woman stance.

(Forgive me if this isn't as coherent as it could be. He-whom-I-breastfed has been waking up every hour on the hour for progressively longer portions of the night for the last three nights, AND I have a cold, so I am sick and *extremely* exhausted right now.)
"A ship is safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:26 pm UTC

I know this is not directly related to the topic but it was interesting in the context of some of the conversation. And look at the video. I still am amazed at how our perception can be warped. From the Daily Mail.

Are these the world's most beautiful faces? Woman Photoshopped in more than 25 countries to show how global beauty standards vary across globe

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10332
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby addams » Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:38 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:I know this is not directly related to the topic but it was interesting in the context of some of the conversation. And look at the video. I still am amazed at how our perception can be warped. From the Daily Mail.

Are these the world's most beautiful faces? Woman Photoshopped in more than 25 countries to show how global beauty standards vary across globe

That is completely Off Topic.
That is Amazing.

What version did you like best?
I liked Think Pink! It is Magical.

That is so great.
Now do it with her Tits showing?

See?
Spoiler:
Back on Topic

It would be funny.
NSFW.

Of course, it would not be fit for Polite Company.
When we are not at work, we are not always Polite Company.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby eSOANEM » Fri Jun 27, 2014 8:25 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote: I still am amazed at how our perception can be warped. From the Daily Mail.


If you regularly read the mail (and trust it as a source), your perception is probably more warped than you think.

(although, yes, that link is still good)

edit: clarified
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Crissa » Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:27 pm UTC

Dislking toplessness only for women is definitionally misogyny.

Why?

Because it imparts a standard by which women have to hold to that is higher than men.

Period.

-Crissa

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:16 pm UTC

Yeah, pretty much.

EIther there is something inherently bad or wrong or dirty about women's bodies so they need to cover up, or the problem is what some men will do to women whose bodies they see, and only women are punished for this (either they cover up, or they get creeped on and/or raped).

Both options are pretty explicitly misogynistic.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

speising
Posts: 2365
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby speising » Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:22 pm UTC

so, am i oppressed as a man because i have to wear a stuffy suit to formal occasions, instead of a cool dress? why do i have to wear long trousers and socks at work, when it's 35C outside? are my legs dirty?

johnny_7713
Posts: 555
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:31 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby johnny_7713 » Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:44 pm UTC

For an economic perspective on the issue, this study found the potential economic value of breastfeeding in the US to be $110 billion: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23855027.

Also they argue human milk production should be counted in the GDP.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:10 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:
morriswalters wrote: I still am amazed at how our perception can be warped. From the Daily Mail.


If you regularly read the mail (and trust it as a source), your perception is probably more warped than you think.

(although, yes, that link is still good)

edit: clarified
I don't know that I had read it at all before, until I ran into that. The BBC is my out of country staple.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:44 pm UTC

speising wrote:so, am i oppressed as a man because i have to wear a stuffy suit to formal occasions, instead of a cool dress? why do i have to wear long trousers and socks at work, when it's 35C outside? are my legs dirty?
You are not oppressed for being a man. Full stop.

I do agree that it's unfair for men's formalwear to be so limited, but that's something to take up with your employer and/or the fashion industry. As already discussed work dress codes are not the same as laws, so it's really not relevant to any part of this discussion.

Except as an obvious "what amout the menz?" derail, of course.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10332
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby addams » Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:50 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Yeah, pretty much.

EIther there is something inherently bad or wrong or dirty about women's bodies so they need to cover up, or the problem is what some men will do to women whose bodies they see, and only women are punished for this (either they cover up, or they get creeped on and/or raped).

Both options are pretty explicitly misogynistic.

The creeped on or raped thing is horrible.
Keeping a shirt on does not help, much.

Keeping a shirt on helps.
Keeping on a shirt or Jock Strap for Girls is simply Good Sense, for most.

Tits-a-flapping in the wind is not only distracting for our companions;
For most women it is uncomfortable, at best.

Sure. If all you have to do is Lounge About, Nude is fine.
Carry a 30 lb piece of Rough Lumber across a work site.

Then we'll talk.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

speising
Posts: 2365
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby speising » Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:32 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
speising wrote:so, am i oppressed as a man because i have to wear a stuffy suit to formal occasions, instead of a cool dress? why do i have to wear long trousers and socks at work, when it's 35C outside? are my legs dirty?
You are not oppressed for being a man. Full stop.

I do agree that it's unfair for men's formalwear to be so limited, but that's something to take up with your employer and/or the fashion industry. As already discussed work dress codes are not the same as laws, so it's really not relevant to any part of this discussion.

Except as an obvious "what amout the menz?" derail, of course.


but why then are your only options for why women are expected to not go topless misogynistic? you could just as well say they should take it up with the fashion industry. it's really not a logical argument, just a "i'm a white man and therefore guilty" stance. and it is fashion. there were and are cultures where toplessness is the height of fashion despite women being not treated as equals. so misogyny and covered breasts are not correlated.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby elasto » Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:41 am UTC

The point is that in many cases it is illegal for women to walk around in public topless. It is not illegal for men to wear shorts in the workplace, it's merely against some company rules.

Personally I would say that it is (slightly) oppressive that men and women cannot bare their legs equally in many workplaces, but government oppression is always much worse and much more damaging than private oppression.

eg. individual private businesses refusing to serve black customers would be terrible, but a law being passed forbidding any business from serving them would be an order of magnitude worse.

--

Now, this is a slight tangent as people aren't being forbidden from breastfeeding under nudity laws, but that's the undercurrent that women are up against: A part of her body that serves a practical, healthy, natural and public function is somehow so 'scary' and 'corrupting' that there are laws passed against it where there are no such laws passed against men's legs. And for no good reason as other cultures have and do demonstrate.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10332
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby addams » Sat Jun 28, 2014 4:28 am UTC

I agree with you.
Old Knees are Ugly.

Most women don't need a law to prevent them from displaying their more unattractive bits.
Some do.

Federal Fashion Police?
International Fashion Police?

Humans tend to be extraordinarily sensitive to Fashion Cues.
Who sets the standard?

All over the world people, both men and women, dress like Working Class White Men from the US 1930's.
Many look like they outgrew their Jeans.

I was moved with compassion, until I was told they pay extra to buy jeans that are pre-wornout and damned uncomfortable.

Edit: We can not outlaw Ugly!
I Don't Wann'a Wear A Berka!
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Crissa » Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:59 am UTC

Actually, I am against dress codes which are different for different sexes. There's no reason for them.

And yes, saying that women can wear pants or shirts and men can wear pants is also sexist and feminists are against that, too. The whole being against sexism thing doesn't work if you pick and choose.

-Crissa
Last edited by Crissa on Mon Jun 30, 2014 8:24 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10332
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby addams » Sun Jun 29, 2014 3:36 am UTC

Crissa wrote:Actually, I am against dress codes which are different for different sexes. There's no reason for them.

And yes, saying that women can wear pants or shirts and men can wear pants <i>is also sexist</i> and feminists are against that, too.

-Crissa

What?
Feminists?

Feminists are against What?
Against Pants? Well OK then.

I will conform to the Feminist SterioType.
It is the least I can do.

I am feeling a bit Against Pants.
I am feeling a bit Against Pants on Men and Pants on Women.

I am a Feminist and I am not against Men in Dresses.
I like Women in Dresses. I Like Men in Dresses.

It takes a Real Man to Wear a Dress.
It takes one Hell of a Real Man to Wear a Dress, Well.

Of course, that is True for Women, too.
Where did the Anti-Pants Legue of the Feminists go?
Those must be My People.

Anti-Pants Feminst.
What a great new identity.

We Can sculpt a Law!
It will be wonderful!

The World will be a Better Place!
It will make a noticeable difference.

If you are Not performing Hard Manual Labor,
You better Not have on a Pair of Pants!

See? It will be Great!
Dresses Cover a Multitude of Sins.
Sins of the Son and Sins of the Father.

No More Plumber's Crack.
No More visible DunLap Disease.
No More Grandmas with exposed torso, exposed cleavage to the torso and flapping arm wings.

Over-fucking-Night, the world will change.
It will lose Loads of EyeSores.

That Mini-Me some many men seem to have Up Front will become a gentle fullness of his dress the way a pregnant woman fills out her dress.
I can see nothing but Good Things from a Strict Dress Code that forbids Pants.

Of course, we must wear pants for Hard Manual Labor.
When you are Not At Work, you dress in a Presentable Manner or you have to go to Fashion School in France!
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:34 am UTC

Crissa wrote:Actually, I am against dress codes which are different for different sexes. There's no reason for them.

And yes, saying that women can wear pants or shirts and men can wear pants is also sexist and feminists are against that, too. The whole being against sexism thing doesn't work if you pick and choose.

-Crissa


The military has some pretty flagrant examples of this. Sure, I get it, guys may not need a maternity uniform...but did dress blues hats have to be different? Seriously, what's the necessity for that? Always irked me when I was in.

I would agree, though, that a sexist dress code is less of an issue than oppressive laws. Both may be undesirable, but changing jobs is generally easier than changing countries, so one is on a different level than the other.

I suspect that, socially, you may face difficulty as a guy if you choose to wear a dress(though a kilt is merely eccentric), but I don't think there's a whole lot of laws against it. Well, maybe in particularly backward parts of the country, but seriously...either way, this doesn't rise to the level of an issue that needs heavy legislation.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Crissa » Mon Jun 30, 2014 4:57 pm UTC

Yeah, small things are less important.

But they're still things, and they're still oppression, and they still enable and continue inequality.

-Crissa

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jul 11, 2014 9:07 pm UTC

A little something from the home front on this topic. Bad start and then getting on the right side of the argument.
A message from Ed Hart, President and CEO

As President & CEO of Kentucky Kingdom, it is my responsibility to set policy which is in the best interest of all our guests. To that end, I want to make it absolutely clear that Kentucky Kingdom totally supports the benefits that accrue to mother and child from breastfeeding. We have absolutely no restrictions on breastfeeding at the park, and will leave it up to mom to determine and know, when and where she desires to breastfeed – whether publicly or privately (in the several buildings available for that purpose). Regarding displaying “discretion,” we will leave it up to mom to make that determination and in no way will our staff interfere with mom’s decision. We have instructed our staff accordingly. I am sorry for any confusion this issue has caused, and I personally apologize if we have offended anyone.

Ed Hart


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests