I caught a bit of Dennis Prager the other day, and he was talking about breastfeeding mothers alleging Facebook discrimination. Jenna Wortham, at her NY Times Blog reports:
Facebook is standing firm on a policy that has led to the removal of some photos posted by women that show breastfeeding. The deletions have spurred Facebook members to stage protests both online and offline.
Facebook maintains it is simply enforcing an existing no nudity policy. I didn't realize how widespread the Indignant Lactivist Movement was until I Googled the subject.
A nice young blogger posted this on her site, along with some pictures of herself proudly alimenting her young child:
A nice young blogger posted this on her site, along with some pictures of herself proudly alimenting her young child:
Why do people think that baby pigs/cats/dogs/(mammal of your choice here) nursing are super! cute! and put photos of them in baby books and on sappy greeting cards, but a baby human being nourished is offensive?
AHHHHHHHHHHHH! It makes me rip out my hair. Maybe I should start nursing Willow again. In public. TOPLESS.
I've seen dogs and cats lay on their backs, spread their legs quite unashamedly, and vigorously lick their privates, so I don't think animal behavior is a reliable standard for gauging the limits of human decency. And her desire to scandalize us all by publicly nursing TOPLESS reveals the primal, atavistic urge that drives this attitude-fueled exhibitionism.
Jaelithe tells us (and shows us):
Jaelithe tells us (and shows us):
Offending the unwashed masses is one of my favorite pastimes. Take that, nursing-haters. I flash my boob at you! In a grainy filtered out-of-focus photo that shows even less flesh than the one on the cover of BabyTalk, which, incidentally, showed a lot less flesh than one ordinarily might expect to see on the cover of Vogue.Angry women ranting against the puritans who quail at the sight of their breasts... Super moms proudly railing against the ignorant who equate breastfeeding with pornography...
One problem. These woman warriors are assailing straw men. Not wanting to see your breasts does not make me a puritan; and try as I might, I could not find one account of anyone equating breastfeeding with pornography.
Newsflash: Despite the arduous efforts of BET, MTV, and the major networks, large segments of society still cling tenuously to time-honored standards of decency, which include not showing off your hoo-hoos.
Breastfeeding is a beautiful, intimate experience between mother and child, and there is something creepy about the desire to turn it into a notorious display of "look at me" defiance.
Mothers have every right to discreetly breastfeed in public. Anyone who wants to push a mother and her baby into a bathroom so the baby can eat needs to have his head examined. But that's not what this is about. This is an unbalanced group of women with psychological issues actively stirring up outrage against themselves.
This is the kind of self-righteous, in-your-face ranting that does self-inflicted damage to a cause. Why would a woman want to post a picture of herself breastfeeding? What purpose does it serve, besides announcing, "Look at me! I'm Zena the warrior mother! I have a set of mammaries and I know how to use 'em!"
These women are hurting the cause of discreet public breastfeeding just as the creepy, parading "queers" hurt the homosexual agenda. Gay rights supporters insist these weirdos are not representative of the community at large, and most decry the negative publicity these painted and pierced perverts attract. Leather-clad homosexuals leading around their mates in spiked collars on the end of a chain gain no sympathy for gay rights; and angry Astarte wannabes who let it all hang out while defiantly challenging all "puritans" are doing damage to the righteous cause of public breastfeeding.
It is the outrageous exercise of rights that causes so much social friction in societies. Yes, I have a right to flagrantly denounce everybody's religion but mine, loudly damning everyone to hell for not converting to my faith, but why? What purpose would it serve, other than to anger a lot of people? I sure wouldn't gain any converts. This is the behavior that creates social chaos in places like the Indian subcontinent and the Balkans.
Sometimes it's better to just leave it alone
Big game hunting is a big deal in my state, and everyone has to take a hunter's safety class to get a tag. I took the course many years ago, and the instructor asked us to refrain from triumphant post-hunt displays like strapping a bloody buck across the hood of your pickup and parading down mainstreet past the Dairy Queen and the grocery store. Why? Because my state's been invaded by Bambi-loving city slickers who don't realize these animals would starve over the winter if we didn't manage the population. It ain't the wild west no more. Hunting offends the Disneyesque fantasyland these latte liberal transplants live in, and they vote. Push your slain quarry in their faces and these affluent voters could negatively impact big game hunting for a long time to come.
Standing up for what you believe in is important, but we all must realize that the God-given rights our constitution acknowledges are broad and deep, covering a diverse range of activities. Some of them are bound to rub others the wrong way. The easiest way to keep the peace is to enjoy them fully but charitably and mind your own business. This simple formula keeps the peace in small towns all over America.
If we could learn to keep our breasts, bucks, and bondage fetishes to ourselves, we'd all be a lot better off.
18 comments:
>If we could learn to keep our breasts, bucks, and bondage fetishes to ourselves, we'd all be a lot better off.
My view can pretty much be summed up by "Do what you want. Just do it away from me." I try to return the courtesy.
Exactly what I would expect from a devotee of bastiat. There is so much wisdom in that man's writing.
>Exactly what I would expect from a devotee of bastiat.
You also might like the campaign slogan I would use if I were ever to run for office.
"Vote for me. I'll leave you alone."
You've got my vote!
Hi Silver,
Enjoying your posts here. As an expecting father to my first offspring, it's hard to judge what the standard might be for public breastfeeding; we've never had to consider it before. Suppose it'll be a little while before we're used to it enough to even try it out in public.
Now I come to think about it, I wonder why it needs to be so veiled. Not that I have any urge to show it off, but it raises the question. It sometimes feels like one more way to make parenthood harder than it needs to be. As Paul McCartney once asked "Why don't we do it in the road?" We know the answer: because we're civilised, but it's an instructive question none-the-less.
Jez,
I think mothers should be given very wide latitude to do it wherever they want (my wife breast fed all of our kids). I just found this lactivist movement or whatever it is over the top. And I also find people who are offended by public breastfeeding to be so out of touch with humanity.
People get wrapped around the axle way too easily in this country.
This Post Surprised me a Little. I Thought for sure you were Going to Emphasize the Rights of Women to Breast Feed in Public, since Libertarians are Big on all Sorts of Rights like that, yet your Focus instead was on Being Private and Discrete about it.
Interesting. I wasn't Personally Offended by any of the Photos that you Left Links to, but than again I'm not a Man.
Perhaps you are Right about being Discrete and if Discrete while Breast Feeding in Public, then Public Pictures should be Discrete as well, though I Personally would not have Given this Subject much of a Second Thought, cause I'm not bothered by it, but Oh well.
You don't have to Give much of a Response to this Comment. I just wanted you to Know that I Read it.
I actually was standing up for those breast-feeding women. They have the right to breast feed wherever they want.
I just criticize anyone who flagrantly throws their issues in other peoples faces in a provocative manner and then cry foul when someone reacts.
In a polite, civilized society, we sometimes have to make minor accommodations to keep the peace.
I Guess all they Want is to be Allowed to Post these Pictures on Face Book and I'm not Even Opposed to that, yet if there are some who Object, then that Needs to be Paid Attention to as well.
You are Right though, that Accepting "a Minor Accommodation" for the Sake of Peace is the Right Thing to do and I would go even Further than that and say that the Accepting of a Minor Loss of One's Rights, that is the Right to Post a Breast Feeding Picture on Face Book, is a Much more Polite Thing to do.
What you have Called Accommodation, though, Could also be Called Compromise. Oooh! Such a Dirty Word Among Libertarians. Should I go Wash my Mouth Out with Soap now for Saying that?
I did Understand the Post, Silverfiddle. The Reason why it Surprised me was that so many of the Libertarians that I've Met are sort of "In your Face" about the Fact that People have the Right to do This or that, so your Slightly Different Emphasis did not Fit my Preconceived Mold of Libertarianism.
Let me Throw another One At You, now. What about Issues such as Seat Belts and Motor Bike and Bike Cycle Helmets? These Issues have to do with Personal Safety and not Necessarily the Safety of others, yet it is not as if there is Zero Effect on the Lives of Others.
(To be Continued)
What if someone Else is Driving a Car and Hits such a Vehicle or Bike Rider and the Person Dies. Wouldn't there be a Lot Less Trauma to the other Driver if the Person they Hit Survives, rather than Dies? This is Especially True in Relation to the Bikes.
And what about Allowing such Behavior when some of this Careless Negligence is done by People who have no Insurance. Now the Serious Injuries of those who Survive, in spite their Negligence, has to be Paid for by those who do have Insurance.
And then what about the Distress of the Loved Ones who Wish that Someone they Care About had been more Careful? You see, None of this is Totally Clear Cut.
I don't Really Care that Much about the Seat Belt and Helmet Issues and will Gladly Make this Compromise if it Really Means that Much to Libertarians, yet my Question is this... Why Does it Mean so Much to Them? What's the Big Deal? To me, this is a "Minor Accommodation". I Mean, Come On! Is it Really so Hard to Put a Seat Belt or Helmet On? Just Asking?
I Guess what it Comes Down to is what is a Major and What is a Minor Accommodation? And that is Probably the Whole Problem within every Political Issue.
It comes down to personal choice and personal responsibility.
If I want to ride my harley with my hair flying, unencumbered by a helmet, so be it. That is between me and my insurance company.
Yeh, but what if you Also Exercise your Right to not Buy Insurance? Isn't Liability the Only Insurance that's Required? So who is going to Pay your Medical Bills if you are not Able to do so?
Why is this any Different than the "Personal Choice" of someone who Wants to Post a Breast Feeding Picture on Face Book? I'm just Saying...
So What is a Major and What is a Minor Accommodation? It's not so Simple of an Issue, now is it?
Unfortunately, our government has set up a system where the responsible end up bailing out the irresponsible. If I crack my head open and don't have insurance, it should fall upon voluntary charity to help me if I can't do it myself. Government should not be involved.
See how they turn personal matters into public matters?
As I said in the main post, not driving by the dairy queen with that buck strapped to the front on my pickup is a minor accomodation. I don't offend the Californicators who have moved to my state, keeping them from getting offended and trying to stop all hunting.
Voluntary Charity Takes too Long to Collect and is not Adequate in Times of Dyer Emergency, when Seconds Count. By the Time your Friends Realize that you are in Trouble, you will have died and it will be Too Late. I Doubt Very Much if an Adequate Charitable Fund to Help all of the Uninsured would Ever be Collected.
For the Most Part, Charitable Donations Only Take Care of Brief Temporary Needs, not On Going Ones, yet if you Think that there is no such Thing as a Legitimate Long Term and at Times Even Permanent Need, you are Mistaken.
And as to not Driving by the Dairy Queen with a buck Strapped to the Front of your Pickup, in doing this, you Forfeit your Right to Eat at Dairy Queen on your Way Home from a Hunting Trip. If a Certain Hunter Loves Dairy Queen and has a Long Tradition of Eating there on his Way Home, he may not Consider this a Minor Accommodation. So you see, You are willing to Make some Accommodations and not Others and this Depends on what You Personally Consider Minor.
To me, this is an Inconsistency and the Only Explanation for it that Makes any Sense to me is that the Seat Belt, Helmet Laws just Happen to be a Favorite Pet Peeve of Libertarians.
With that Being Said, I Personally, really Could Care Less whether you Wear a Helmet or Seat Belt, Drive by Dairy Queen or even my House with your Buck or Post a Breast Feeding Picture on Face Book. None of this Matters to me.
I'm just Saying that to be Bothered by One Thing and yet Allow another is an Inconsistency and if someone is So Bothered by the Denial of Their Right to Post a Breast Feeding Photo on Face Book that they Say and Do some Irrational Things in Protest, who are we to Judge it? Whether we Understand their Reasons or not is Really Irrelevant.
Maybe these People Felt Insulted by having such a Photo Placed in the Same Category as Pornography. Perhaps the Insult Stirred Up Anger. To me, it's Really not that Hard to Understand. Perhaps Resorting to an "In Your Face" sort of Attitude is not Entirely Appropriate, yet it is not Impossible to Understand either, cause when People Become Angry, they have a Tendency to Act that Way. That's just the Way Human Being are?
Huh!? It's Interesting that I Ended Up Defending them. Like I Said, None of this Really Matters all that much to me. I Think that all of these Things are Minor Issues, yet I am a Little bothered by Inconsistency. I Guess you Could Save Yourself by Saying that you would Never Legislate the Good Manners that you are Talking about on this Post.
None of these activities "bother" me. I am a live and let live guy and I am completely consistent. I wish our society were as well.
My point is that flagrant and flamboyant display of one's rights can end up offending others to the point they demand government "do something!" And that is where the trouble starts and we lose our liberties.
I can put the buck in the back of my truck and still stop by the Dairy Queen for my post-hunt milkshake :)
"I can put the buck in the back of my truck and still stop by the Dairy Queen for my post-hunt milkshake. :)"
You Know I Actually thought about that just after Posting my Above Comment and in Reality, I Agree with your Main Point in this Post. I Guess it is showy Arrogance that Gets us into Trouble. The Deer on the Hood, rather then in the Back, says "Wow! Look what I did!!" Even the Breast Feeding Photos are a Form of Showing Off, yet Showing Off a Baby is Generally Viewed as an Acceptable Behavior, which is Probably why some of These Women are having a Hard Time seeing this Behavior as Wrong.
Post a Comment