California breastfeeding picture controversy

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

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

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:56 pm UTC

PAstrychef wrote:I don't want men to stop having sexy thoughts. I just don't like the fact that people have sexy thoughts often leads to an expectation that women modify their dress and behavior so that men won't assault them, or be distracted from their lives by being forced to have sexy thoughts because a recognizably female body just entered their field of view.
Perhaps if breasts were on view more often, men wouldn't find it necessary to watch them through binoculars. There are places where topless women excite little to no comment at all. And not all of them are found in National Geographic.
If men walked around with their penii hanging out, it wouldn't be okay for women to randomly grope them.

What is ethical and permissible has little to do with it in a practical sense. Tie a steak around your neck and go walking in bear country and your bear bait. Unless there is a sudden shift in behaviors there aren't too many places on earth where a totally nude woman will be safe outside of certain contexts. And for the foreseeable future that probably won't change. Fashion per se is about showing off the wares. If you want a barometer, then wait for the moment when fashion doesn't mean anything anymore.
.
Tyndmyr wrote:If you see something and think it is inappropriate, that is fine. Right, wrong, whatever. When you start trying to make them do what you want them to do, well...now your justification for why you have to do that matters. If you don't have a pretty good justification(like, this keeps people safe from actual, demonstratable harm), you probably shouldn't be doing that.
At what point in civilization has law not been a tool to impose rules on behavior? And what does justification amount to?

And can somebody tell me a job, a normal job, that encourages either men or women to go topless?

I believe that a women should breastfeed whenever and wherever she chooses, but there are prudes. And by the way, did anyone at the graduation complain, I thought the ruckus happened afterword?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:43 am UTC

So because we can't possibly expect men to behave better than wild animals, sexist laws that hurt women are the only possible solution?

morriswalters wrote:And can somebody tell me a job, a normal job, that encourages either men or women to go topless?
First: who except you is talking about jobs that encourage toplessness?

Second: you're just going to define "normal" so that it excludes things where people often go topless, like sex work or lifeguarding.
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)

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

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby elasto » Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:13 am UTC

Unless there is a sudden shift in behaviors there aren't too many places on earth where a totally nude woman will be safe outside of certain contexts.


I have to disagree with this premise. I can't really think of any examples where a totally nude woman would be significantly less safe than a topless woman or a woman in a bikini. Do you have any reports showing that people at topless beaches, topless protests and so on get assaulted at higher rates than people at clothed beaches and clothed protests? Likewise, is there any evidence showing that in tribes with topless women they get assaulted more often than in tribes with clothed women?

Human sexuality is heavily contextualized. I assume you've been to beaches with women bathing topless, and, while when you first arrive it is momentarily titillating it very quickly becomes normal - with a topless woman getting no more of a second glance than she would get clothed. (That is to say that a pretty woman will get a second glance whether or not she's topless - full, rounded boobs will be admired regardless of whether they are covered or not - but it very quickly becomes 'the new norm' and she will be no less safe for all that.)

The same thing is true in my experience when witnessing breastfeeding.

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

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:21 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:So because we can't possibly expect men to behave better than wild animals, sexist laws that hurt women are the only possible solution?

morriswalters wrote:And can somebody tell me a job, a normal job, that encourages either men or women to go topless?
First: who except you is talking about jobs that encourage toplessness?

Second: you're just going to define "normal" so that it excludes things where people often go topless, like sex work or lifeguarding.
Breast feeding isn't against the law anywhere that I am aware of. Toplessness is something altogether different.

By implication you. You stated that if there was a place that men were allowed to be topless than women should be allowed also. And of course I'm going to define normal that way. Lifeguards and dancers in strip clubs, male or female, are time limited commodities, used and discarded. Lifeguards are a seasonal position anywhere in the US but California. Both classes are useful to their employers only as long as those bodies last.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 24, 2014 2:15 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
morriswalters wrote:And can somebody tell me a job, a normal job, that encourages either men or women to go topless?
First: who except you is talking about jobs that encourage toplessness?
By implication you. You stated that if there was a place that men were allowed to be topless than women should be allowed also.
Are you aware of what the word "if" means?
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
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Azrael » Tue Jun 24, 2014 2:38 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:Lifeguards and dancers in strip clubs, male or female, are time limited commodities, used and discarded.

Dear Osiris, that's awful. The gender parity doesn't help. It's just a shitty way to think about people.

Even if you said the same for other seasonal or high turnover jobs -- fast food workers, garbage collectors, vector marketeers, water/amusement park staff, camp counselors, landscapers, retail clerks -- it would still be class-enforcing, discriminatory, dismissive nonsense.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:35 am UTC

To be fair, everyone is a time limited commodity. No one lives forever, and not everyone is capable of working into their 80's.

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

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:33 am UTC

Azrael wrote:The gender parity doesn't help. It's just a shitty way to think about people.
It may be awful but it is what it is. And not acknowledging it is part of the problem. The culture I live in is racist, ageist, and sexist. And not more than a little elitist.
Azrael wrote:Even if you said the same for other seasonal or high turnover jobs -- fast food workers, garbage collectors, vector marketeers, water/amusement park staff, camp counselors, landscapers, retail clerks -- it would still be class-enforcing, discriminatory, dismissive nonsense.
Calling it nonsense makes you feel better, but it doesn't change anything. Business people see them in exactly that way. And please don't make the mistake of assuming that I am quite as dismissive of people as you seem to feel me to be. Discuss with me the numerical frequency of your associations with people having those particular skill sets. I suspect I associate with more of them than you do. But perhaps I'm wrong.

The push back against breastfeeding in public is happens because it takes people out of their comfort zones. The female breast is an idealized sexual appendage in this society. And people have a hard time with considering it for what it really is, the exterior manifestation of a milk producing structure. And men and women are blasted with representations on a daily basis that maintain that confusion. You can't make porn and sexualized advertisements commodities and not expect it to leave people confused.

@gmalivuk

Yes, I saw the word if.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:43 am UTC

Apart from your shitty classist attitude, whether or not we personally associate with more or fewer such people than you do is irrelevant to the fact that you are fallaciously dismissing those jobs as not "normal". For no real reason other than that it allows you to claim no "normal" job encourages shirtlessness. Not that it's at all clear why you're now restricting yourself to "normal" jobs in the first place.

Okay that's a lie. It's totally clear that you're restricting yourself in order to be able to dismiss my statement, because you still don't understand what "if" means. I made that statement in the first place to emphasize that there *aren't* many jobs that encourage shirtlessness for their employees, so the 'gotcha' question about how one would feel at work around a topless coworker was rather pointless.

If a workplace, "normal" or not, already allows any toplessness, it should allow it equally for men and for women in equivalent positions.
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
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby eSOANEM » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:26 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Azrael wrote:The gender parity doesn't help. It's just a shitty way to think about people.
It may be awful but it is what it is. And not acknowledging it is part of the problem. The culture I live in is racist, ageist, and sexist. And not more than a little elitist.
Azrael wrote:Even if you said the same for other seasonal or high turnover jobs -- fast food workers, garbage collectors, vector marketeers, water/amusement park staff, camp counselors, landscapers, retail clerks -- it would still be class-enforcing, discriminatory, dismissive nonsense.
Calling it nonsense makes you feel better, but it doesn't change anything. Business people see them in exactly that way. And please don't make the mistake of assuming that I am quite as dismissive of people as you seem to feel me to be. Discuss with me the numerical frequency of your associations with people having those particular skill sets. I suspect I associate with more of them than you do. But perhaps I'm wrong.


Emphasis mine.

"Some of my best friends are in seasonal, high-turnover jobs."
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

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

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:58 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Apart from your shitty classist attitude, whether or not we personally associate with more or fewer such people than you do is irrelevant to the fact that you are fallaciously dismissing those jobs as not "normal". For no real reason other than that it allows you to claim no "normal" job encourages shirtlessness. Not that it's at all clear why you're now restricting yourself to "normal" jobs in the first place.

Okay that's a lie. It's totally clear that you're restricting yourself in order to be able to dismiss my statement, because you still don't understand what "if" means. I made that statement in the first place to emphasize that there *aren't* many jobs that encourage shirtlessness for their employees, so the 'gotcha' question about how one would feel at work around a topless coworker was rather pointless.

If a workplace, "normal" or not, already allows any toplessness, it should allow it equally for men and for women in equivalent positions.
A shitty attitude? Well maybe. If so then it comes from dealing with the reality in my everyday experience. I've driven a taxi, mowed grass for money, and worked for a fast food place. A "normal" job should give you skills going forward that allow you to accumulate enough wealth so that you don't end up poor and old at the same time. None of those jobs do so. And you accept those garbage men as fulfilling a needed function, with a hearty "Any job which lets you make a living is a good job.". Up until the daughter brings one home to the McMansion and you start having thoughts about little garbage men running through the house rather than the little Physicists that you daydream about.

gmalivuk wrote:And if you work somewhere that men can already be topless, then I absolutely think women should be able to do the same.
This statement is empty of any true meaning. Men and women are different. You can't on one hand sexualize the breast and on the other suggest that it shouldn't make a difference. Men go to strip clubs to see a women's breasts. And the beach is a meat show for men and women. If you think this isn't true listen to the laughter if a fat man shows up in speedos or a fat woman shows up in a bikini. Would you like to hear the jokes? In this culture that's the way it is. It's see and be seen. If you don't care for that, tough shit. So the statement is rhetorical nonsense. It states an ideal which doesn't exist, and given the current society, isn't going to.

Mutex
Posts: 1491
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Mutex » Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:01 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:A "normal" job should give you skills going forward that allow you to accumulate enough wealth so that you don't end up poor and old at the same time.


Weirdest definition of "normal" I've ever come across.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Azrael » Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:10 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote: And please don't make the mistake of assuming that I am quite as dismissive of people as you seem to feel me to be. Discuss with me the numerical frequency of your associations with people having those particular skill sets. I suspect I associate with more of them than you do. But perhaps I'm wrong.

... which skill sets make up "them", again? 'Cause I'll start adding things like construction, painters, snow plow drivers, ice cream truck workers if we're talking seasonal. Heavy manufacturing for high turn over. Professional athletes, actors, models, ballet dancers and a infinite string of others if we're talking short career length due to aging. I doubt you can make any such claim towards "numerical frequency of association" with several enormously diverse not-really-groups as those.

Either way, there is no alternative but to take you at the value of your language -- not your appeal to having had seasonal jobs or friends in such -- and your language is far beyond suggestive that you've completely internalized (and are now repeating as gospel) the dismissive behaviors you'd like to blame on the larger culture or the business that employ ... well, whatever grouping of people you're smashing together here. You have taken the historical bad behaviors and unfortunate way we treat either seasonal, high-turn over or age-limited workers and are using it as an excuse to perpetuate the attitude.

Reality treats a huge portion of workers poorly. That you're aware of that truth is no excuse for you to repeat and enforce the same dismissive groupings.

morriswalters wrote:I've driven a taxi, mowed grass for money, and worked for a fast food place. A "normal" job should give you skills going forward that allow you to accumulate enough wealth so that you don't end up poor and old at the same time. None of those jobs do so.

"Normal" then becomes something akin to white collar desk jobs with health insurance and a 401(k).

Funny how you just grouped the majority of jobs and workers out of "normal". I don't think that's what "normal" means.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 24, 2014 2:11 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Apart from your shitty classist attitude, whether or not we personally associate with more or fewer such people than you do is irrelevant to the fact that you are fallaciously dismissing those jobs as not "normal". For no real reason other than that it allows you to claim no "normal" job encourages shirtlessness. Not that it's at all clear why you're now restricting yourself to "normal" jobs in the first place.

Okay that's a lie. It's totally clear that you're restricting yourself in order to be able to dismiss my statement, because you still don't understand what "if" means. I made that statement in the first place to emphasize that there *aren't* many jobs that encourage shirtlessness for their employees, so the 'gotcha' question about how one would feel at work around a topless coworker was rather pointless.

If a workplace, "normal" or not, already allows any toplessness, it should allow it equally for men and for women in equivalent positions.
A shitty attitude? Well maybe. If so then it comes from dealing with the reality in my everyday experience. I've driven a taxi, mowed grass for money, and worked for a fast food place. A "normal" job should give you skills going forward that allow you to accumulate enough wealth so that you don't end up poor and old at the same time. None of those jobs do so. And you accept those garbage men as fulfilling a needed function, with a hearty "Any job which lets you make a living is a good job.". Up until the daughter brings one home to the McMansion and you start having thoughts about little garbage men running through the house rather than the little Physicists that you daydream about.

I suspect garbage men may make substantially more money than I do, and almost certainly have better benefits as city employees.

By your definition "normal" accounts for only a small minority of jobs, which means you're using a dumbfuck definition of "normal".

gmalivuk wrote:And if you work somewhere that men can already be topless, then I absolutely think women should be able to do the same.
This statement is empty of any true meaning. Men and women are different. You can't on one hand sexualize the breast and on the other suggest that it shouldn't make a difference. Men go to strip clubs to see a women's breasts. And the beach is a meat show for men and women. If you think this isn't true listen to the laughter if a fat man shows up in speedos or a fat woman shows up in a bikini. Would you like to hear the jokes? In this culture that's the way it is. It's see and be seen. If you don't care for that, tough shit. So the statement is rhetorical nonsense. It states an ideal which doesn't exist, and given the current society, isn't going to.

That's how this culture is, so nothing whatsoever could possibly change that? Like, say, normalizing toplessness by seeing it equally for both sexes?
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)

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Jun 24, 2014 3:18 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Azrael wrote:The gender parity doesn't help. It's just a shitty way to think about people.
It may be awful but it is what it is. And not acknowledging it is part of the problem. The culture I live in is racist, ageist, and sexist. And not more than a little elitist.

That doesn't mean you have to use dehumanizing language to describe other people in a discussion about your culture. Please don't call people "commodities" to be "used and discarded." I like people. They're nice.

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

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:32 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
morriswalters wrote:I've driven a taxi, mowed grass for money, and worked for a fast food place. A "normal" job should give you skills going forward that allow you to accumulate enough wealth so that you don't end up poor and old at the same time. None of those jobs do so.

"Normal" then becomes something akin to white collar desk jobs with health insurance and a 401(k).

Funny how you just grouped the majority of jobs and workers out of "normal". I don't think that's what "normal" means.


This might be overly pedantic, but there are a number of blue collar jobs that still offer decent pay, are normal enough, etc. Locksmith. Plumber. Electrician. Auto mechanic. Yeah, the factory workers may be on the decline long term, but there is still significant space where someone who doesn't work at a desk can make decent money. Rich, likely not, but you can live decently well working with your hands. My little brother's a welder, and he makes nearly what I do as a rather well paid software engineer.

There's no need to try to lump everything into either "temporary seasonal" jobs or "white collar desk work".

Also, most of those jobs, you'll probably want a shirt on. Not necessarily because of modesty, but because shirts serve practical purposes.

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

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby mobiusstripsearch » Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:40 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
mobiusstripsearch wrote:If many different social mores are ok, why are we being so critical of the one our society uses?
We're being critical of it here, because of the behavior it's causing. My point wasn't that other social mores are better, but that social mores are different everywhere, and hinging your sense of propriety on what you've been raised around is a poor way to operate when it comes to your expectations of OTHER people.

Sure, fine, you find breastfeeding in public to be embarrassing or inappropriate, fine, don't do it! But don't tell others to knock it off. That's Puritan level bullshit.


What behavior do you mean specifically? In the American society I live in, public breastfeeding is not only condoned, but in most places protected by law. Whereas toplessness is not.

gmalivuk wrote:So because we can't possibly expect men to behave better than wild animals, sexist laws that hurt women are the only possible solution?


Maybe I missed part of the discussion, but which sexist laws? Laws that proscribe public toplessness?

Tyndmyr wrote:
mobiusstripsearch wrote:If many different social mores are ok, why are we being so critical of the one our society uses?


Our mores are decent. I got nothing against mores until you start trying to force other people to follow them.

If you see something and think it is inappropriate, that is fine. Right, wrong, whatever. When you start trying to make them do what you want them to do, well...now your justification for why you have to do that matters. If you don't have a pretty good justification(like, this keeps people safe from actual, demonstratable harm), you probably shouldn't be doing that.


We're back to why sex in public places isn't justifiable. I don't want to repeat the whole bit about why not seeing nooky in public is a reasonable expectation and not terribly Puritan of me. But that's the easiest example of why being a prude can be a fine reason for objecting to something.
"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
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:44 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Azrael wrote:
morriswalters wrote:I've driven a taxi, mowed grass for money, and worked for a fast food place. A "normal" job should give you skills going forward that allow you to accumulate enough wealth so that you don't end up poor and old at the same time. None of those jobs do so.

"Normal" then becomes something akin to white collar desk jobs with health insurance and a 401(k).

Funny how you just grouped the majority of jobs and workers out of "normal". I don't think that's what "normal" means.


This might be overly pedantic, but there are a number of blue collar jobs that still offer decent pay, are normal enough, etc. Locksmith. Plumber. Electrician. Auto mechanic. Yeah, the factory workers may be on the decline long term, but there is still significant space where someone who doesn't work at a desk can make decent money. Rich, likely not, but you can live decently well working with your hands. My little brother's a welder, and he makes nearly what I do as a rather well paid software engineer.

There's no need to try to lump everything into either "temporary seasonal" jobs or "white collar desk work".

Also, most of those jobs, you'll probably want a shirt on. Not necessarily because of modesty, but because shirts serve practical purposes.
Yeah, but the whole point with my bringing up shirtlessness at work was that it is rather rare, so allowing it in women as well as men won't actually change the vast majority of workplaces.

The other issue is morriswalters's insistence that "normal" jobs don't include seasonal or temporary jobs.

mobiusstripsearch wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:So because we can't possibly expect men to behave better than wild animals, sexist laws that hurt women are the only possible solution?
Maybe I missed part of the discussion, but which sexist laws? Laws that proscribe public toplessness?
Laws that proscribe public toplessness for women are sexist. (Are there any laws that proscribe public toplessness for men in the United States?)
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)

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

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:51 pm UTC

mobiusstripsearch wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
mobiusstripsearch wrote:If many different social mores are ok, why are we being so critical of the one our society uses?


Our mores are decent. I got nothing against mores until you start trying to force other people to follow them.

If you see something and think it is inappropriate, that is fine. Right, wrong, whatever. When you start trying to make them do what you want them to do, well...now your justification for why you have to do that matters. If you don't have a pretty good justification(like, this keeps people safe from actual, demonstratable harm), you probably shouldn't be doing that.


We're back to why sex in public places isn't justifiable. I don't want to repeat the whole bit about why not seeing nooky in public is a reasonable expectation and not terribly Puritan of me. But that's the easiest example of why being a prude can be a fine reason for objecting to something.


Maybe. And I admit, my reaction is immediately that I don't particularly want to see that....but maybe it shouldn't be. I'm looking for a justification on grounds other than "I don't want to see it", but maybe if one doesn't exist, it is my reaction that is wrong, and not the act.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:52 pm UTC

I'm pretty okay treating it as self-evident that it's not okay to include other people (the bystanding public) in your sex acts without their consent.
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)

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

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:56 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:I'm pretty okay treating it as self-evident that it's not okay to include other people (the bystanding public) in your sex acts without their consent.


If seeing is being included in the actual act, then does this not result in some odd conclusions regarding breastfeeding?

Which, incidentally, makes a certain xkcd comic make rather a lot of sense.

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

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jun 24, 2014 5:03 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:That doesn't mean you have to use dehumanizing language to describe other people in a discussion about your culture. Please don't call people "commodities" to be "used and discarded." I like people. They're nice.
No, people are people. Some are nice and some aren't. And in a discussion, if there is to be any point, then you need to talk about things as they are, not as you want them to be. And it is not how I treat or think of people. It is how society overall thinks of them.

If you walk into a topless bar you have reduced the women in that bar to exactly that, a commodity. A rock star is no different. The difference lies in how you value what they are selling. Society overall speaks to the value of the different members of society by choosing to value their contributions by how they pay them. Note gmalivik's response to me. I in effect, said that he wouldn't want his daughter, if he had one, to marry a garbage man. His response is that they make more money than him, not that it wouldn't matter to him.

If you want to live in a world where a women breastfeeding in public becomes invisible, then quit idealizing the breast as a sexual focus. Until that day, saying something as removed from reality, as if men can be topless then women should be able to be is silly.

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

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby mobiusstripsearch » Tue Jun 24, 2014 5:07 pm UTC

I'm back to this:

Maybe this is only a good observation at 4 AM: It seems like a Western society's standard of public decency is based on what's inacceptable [sic] for unsuspecting women, children, and elders.


I've heard it said that 'Civilization is the substitution of the unknown with the arbitrary'. Our standards being arbitrary does not make them unjustifiable.

@Morris: If my walking into a topless bar reduces women to a commodity, what does that say of the women working the bar?
"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
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 24, 2014 5:39 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Note gmalivik's response to me. I in effect, said that he wouldn't want his daughter, if he had one, to marry a garbage man. His response is that they make more money than him, not that it wouldn't matter to him.
Because you were implying that people in such a position would be forever poor. So I pointed out that they'd be less poor than I am.

But while you're trying to accuse me of internalized classism: No, I would not object to my daughter dating a garbage man if he loved her and made her happy.

If you want to live in a world where a women breastfeeding in public becomes invisible, then quit idealizing the breast as a sexual focus. Until that day, saying something as removed from reality, as if men can be topless then women should be able to be is silly.
Again, why are you disconnecting these two things? Seeing more naked breasts around day to day will serve to desexualize them, just like how we are no longer scandalized by the sight of ankles or unbound hair.
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: 2363
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby speising » Tue Jun 24, 2014 5:41 pm UTC

but wouldn't that be a shame? i like to be stimulated by the sight of a nice pair of breasts.

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

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:05 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Again, why are you disconnecting these two things? Seeing more naked breasts around day to day will serve to desexualize them, just like how we are no longer scandalized by the sight of ankles or unbound hair.
See the post following yours.
speising wrote:but wouldn't that be a shame? i like to be stimulated by the sight of a nice pair of breasts.
In theory, in a world were reproduction is asexual, what you want may be possible. In a world where the mating dance involves making yourself into and object to be desired, this is the obvious outcome. What you want to believe is that you, as a human have complete control over your behavior where this situation is concerned. I aver that you don't. So we end up in these endlessly repeating situations where what we want conflicts with what we can do.

If a women wants to breastfeed she has to ignore that there are ignorant people both male and female that will be uncomfortable. There is no law against it. There is really no custom. Had formula never come into widespread use this situation wouldn't be anywhere near this controversial. Doctors and others discouraged breastfeeding and disconnected in the public mind the act feeding a baby from the breast. And if we didn't have social media there would have been muttering in private about the event under discussion and that would have ended it. People are now reconnecting to the idea that breastfeeding is good for the baby on any number of levels. You need to be able to say in your mind "fuck you" to those individuals that get all twisted over this. But they won't ever shut up completely.

On a more personal note, I don't believe you to be guilty of classism in any real sense. However you and Azreal didn't take a moment to try and separate what I wanted you to see from what you think of me. I shouldn't be surprised but I still am. Classism exists. Some of it due to the differences in experience. Garbage Men and Engineers don't share much commonality. Some of it because we have been taught that your worth is expressed by your pay and that is expressed by the skills you possess. That is the true normal. So fast food jobs aren't normal jobs. They don't pay, there is no longevity or loyalty. Seldom health benefits. You don't encourage your child to grow up and flip burgers at the Golden Arches. In short you don't respect the value of the job.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:16 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Again, why are you disconnecting these two things? Seeing more naked breasts around day to day will serve to desexualize them, just like how we are no longer scandalized by the sight of ankles or unbound hair.
See the post following yours.
Assuming that post wasn't made in jest: I don't give a fuck if some asshole thinks it'd be a shame to desexualize breasts. My point was that seeing more breasts would, in fact, desexualize them. Whining about how that would be a shame is neither here nor there.

That is the true normal. So fast food jobs aren't normal jobs. They don't pay, there is no longevity or loyalty. Seldom health benefits. You don't encourage your child to grow up and flip burgers at the Golden Arches. In short you don't respect the value of the job.
Which has what to do with the meaning of "normal", again? Why are you defining "normal job" as a job most people desire to grow old and retire from? Most jobs aren't like that, so you're saying most jobs aren't "normal".

Which is not what the word "normal" means when anyone else says it.
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)

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:30 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:And in a discussion, if there is to be any point, then you need to talk about things as they are, not as you want them to be. And it is not how I treat or think of people. It is how society overall thinks of them.
Then say "Society treats exotic dancers as objects." Or "The industry treats sex workers as objects." Please don't say "Exotic dancers are objects." Not only is it rude, it's factually incorrect.
morriswalters wrote:I in effect, said that he wouldn't want his daughter, if he had one, to marry a garbage man.
Yes, and that was a terrible thing to say. Please don't assume we all share your prejudices. I certainly don't.
morriswalters wrote:If you want to live in a world where a women breastfeeding in public becomes invisible, then quit idealizing the breast as a sexual focus.
I'm not the one who's freaking out over women feeding babies. And you seem to continue identifying breastfeeding as a sexual act reasons I don't understand. Have you considered that maybe you're the one who needs to change your perspective?
morriswalters wrote:Doctors and others discouraged breastfeeding and disconnected in the public mind the act feeding a baby from the breast.
Translated: Men incorrectly portrayed the breast as purely sexual. That happened, and we're stuck with that portrayal, and everyone in the damn world has to change their behavior because a man said so.

The reason for shaming breastfeeding is that it is a visible reminder that the male perspective on breasts is false. It's not only sexist, it's wrong. Why should I submit to public shaming based on a false premise?

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

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Crissa » Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:22 pm UTC

Good rule of thumb: Don't solder while naked.

I was surprised I had to teach my spouse this. Or that she didn't learn the first time she burned herself and didn't learn until she dropped solder on her bare foot.

-Crissa

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1405
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby freezeblade » Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:00 pm UTC

Don't cook/bake when naked either. Have on an apron at least, spitting bacon grease is not good times.
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

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

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:50 pm UTC

To the OP, my apologies for derailing your thread.

Azrael wrote:... which skill sets make up "them", again? 'Cause I'll start adding things like construction, painters, snow plow drivers, ice cream truck workers if we're talking seasonal. Heavy manufacturing for high turn over. Professional athletes, actors, models, ballet dancers and a infinite string of others if we're talking short career length due to aging. I doubt you can make any such claim towards "numerical frequency of association" with several enormously diverse not-really-groups as those.

Either way, there is no alternative but to take you at the value of your language -- not your appeal to having had seasonal jobs or friends in such -- and your language is far beyond suggestive that you've completely internalized (and are now repeating as gospel) the dismissive behaviors you'd like to blame on the larger culture or the business that employ ... well, whatever grouping of people you're smashing together here. You have taken the historical bad behaviors and unfortunate way we treat either seasonal, high-turn over or age-limited workers and are using it as an excuse to perpetuate the attitude.

Reality treats a huge portion of workers poorly. That you're aware of that truth is no excuse for you to repeat and enforce the same dismissive groupings.
Sure it does. Keep selling, but you haven't sold me yet. Certainly I have internalized it. I had to to make a living. I had to make a decision to work and make enough to do what I wanted to do. The bulk of all those people you talk about walk away from it eventually. They have no choice. You can't make a stable living. You can't raise kids, or do most of the things that people want to do. Most go on to do something else. Something more normal. And sometimes they do so to be able to do what they love. Let us single out Academia as an example. As an educator at a University what is your status if you don't secure tenure? Do you think a teacher of English Lit without tenure is viewed as anything other than a commodity? To be discarded the minute the University has no need? What I think of these people isn't the issue. I don't hire or fire.

This is what you want to believe is true. But it isn't. And it is evinced by people who post here.
Labour is not a commodity is the principle expressed in the preamble to the International Labour Organization's founding documents. It expresses the view that people should not be treated like inanimate commodities, capital, another mere factor of production, or resources. Instead, people who work for a living should be treated as human beings, and accorded dignity and respect.


@ Heisenberg
Crap. Can I be any clearer. I had written something much longer, but I asked myself why I was wasting my time and deleted it.

gmalivuk wrote:Assuming that post wasn't made in jest: I don't give a fuck if some asshole thinks it'd be a shame to desexualize breasts. My point was that seeing more breasts would, in fact, desexualize them. Whining about how that would be a shame is neither here nor there.
Do tell. Could you support that with some facts. And tell the asshole that, not me. I'm not particularly amused. However I'm willing to be convinced. Can you show me an example, anywhere in the world of a culture above stone age, that manages that feat. Can you point to any literature that suggests this is a cure to the sexualization of women.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:44 pm UTC

I'm not saying it will "cure" the sexualization of women, I'm saying it will desexualize breasts. Pay attention.
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
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby EMTP » Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:11 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:I'm not saying it will "cure" the sexualization of women, I'm saying it will desexualize breasts. Pay attention.


I doubt it works like that. Sexual response is dependent on context. Healthcare providers that see lots of breasts on exam tables are still perfectly able to ogle girls in sundresses.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:35 am UTC

Which is why you still get a hard-on for ankles, is it?

It would desexualize breasts in the context of walking around on the street.
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 » Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:47 am UTC

You have my undivided attention. Your contention is the we can desexualize breasts by exposing them, is that correct? So what is it exactly that you think we should do? How should we achieve that goal?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:53 am UTC

I'm just saying it would be a consequence of more women walking around topless in everyday situations, if they so choose.
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)

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

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby elasto » Wed Jun 25, 2014 1:40 am UTC

Yup.

Up until a certain point in our relationship, the only time I saw my wife's breasts was during a sexual encounter. As such her boobs were highly sexualized: Seeing them was a cue that things were going to get funky and my hormones responded accordingly.

Then there came a time when she would happily walk around topless even for extended periods when choosing her clothes for the day, or before and after showering, and, while I enjoy looking at her boobs just like I enjoy looking at her pretty face, because of the context of the situation it very definitely desexualizes them for me. Not totally of course, but to a large extent. Now my hormones take other cues for if she's 'in the mood'.

And yet her boobs become sexual objects again if we are in a sexual encounter - but then again so does her neck, her legs and, frankly, all of her - including all the bits that are normally totally non-sexualized - like her ankles (to repeat the example)

Sexual response for me is all about context - and, seeing as I don't see men regularly forced by their hormones to maul strangers on topless beaches I don't think I am unusual in this respect.

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

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby morriswalters » Wed Jun 25, 2014 1:52 am UTC

The context is so confused in my opinion, I think that would in real terms it would be counter productive.. The papers I was able to access all cite hypersexualization as the problem. The solution seems somewhat less clear. And the statistics are worse than I thought. Less than 22 percent are still breastfeeding after six months according to one source. It's neither illegal, unethical, immoral. And it has clear definable benefits to the child. I guess I'll stick with the idea that hit me first. Fuck all those people who don't like it. Gossip doesn't really kill. More sadly is that husbands attitudes play more of a part than I would have thought. Facebook might have actually broken some ground on this issue.

@elasto

Oddly enough any number of husbands in the studies I could read thought that a women breastfeeding made her less appealing or engaged fears that her breasts wouldn't look as good afterword. And pressured her to stop to early.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby EMTP » Wed Jun 25, 2014 4:08 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Which is why you still get a hard-on for ankles, is it?

It would desexualize breasts in the context of walking around on the street.


If you think sexual interest in breasts is a social construction, you're a moron.

I don't know what you think you are trying to prove with this hypothetical, but you're making an ass of yourself.

morriswalters wrote:The context is so confused in my opinion, I think that would in real terms it would be counter productive.. The papers I was able to access all cite hypersexualization as the problem. The solution seems somewhat less clear. And the statistics are worse than I thought. Less than 22 percent are still breastfeeding after six months according to one source. It's neither illegal, unethical, immoral. And it has clear definable benefits to the child. I guess I'll stick with the idea that hit me first. Fuck all those people who don't like it. Gossip doesn't really kill. More sadly is that husbands attitudes play more of a part than I would have thought. Facebook might have actually broken some ground on this issue.


I'd be interested to see those papers. My experience of patients that don't breastfeed is that a lot of them weren't breastfed. So perhaps there is an element of cognitive dissonance at play where to breastfeed suggests their mother made a mistake and they themselves didn't get the best care.

Also, breastfeeding is a skill. Just because it is "natural" doesn't mean you don't have to learn how to do it. There are few large, multigenerational families any more where this knowledge is a constant in the household. Hospitals are getting better about lactation counseling and so forth, but there was neglect for a long time. And the lack of workplace support and public support are an issue, as well.

Parenthetically, the inverse of the problem exists as well -- mothers and families so hell-bent on breastfeeding and nothing but breastfeeding that they refuse to supplement with formula, even when it's absolutely necessary for the health of the child.

People be crazy. What you gonna do.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jun 25, 2014 4:26 am UTC

EMTP wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Which is why you still get a hard-on for ankles, is it?

It would desexualize breasts in the context of walking around on the street.

If you think sexual interest in breasts is a social construction, you're a moron.

Yes, the exclusively sexual interest in breasts is absolutely, 100% a social construction. As evidenced by the fact that there are tons of societies all around the world where casual toplessness (and even complete nudity) is not seen as inherently sexual.

Breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic, and while it makes evolutionary sense for them to be seen as attractive, that's no more true of breasts than it is of hip or shoulder width or body or facial hair or any other secondary sexual characteristics. Or any of the obviously socially constructed conventional markers of attractiveness/wealth, for that matter. That doesn't imply that there's any non-social justification for them being overtly sexualized in every context, which is a word you seemed to miss in the post you quoted.
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)


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests