Breastfeeding is the default! : I used to think that "childfree" didn't mean "hate anything whatsoever to do with children"

(Post a new comment)

	housepoet 2006-06-04 00:07 (link)
	there are a lot more posts in that community you should have screen capped too. Like the one where they are talking about searching out nursing moms. =\ (Reply to this) (Thread)

	yonmei 2006-06-04 00:15 (link)
	Good grief, I didn't want to spend time reading that community. I didn't even read the thread attached to it. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	mystik00769 2006-06-05 13:33 (link)
	I looked back to around the 14th of May and didn't see any :( (Reply to this) (Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2006-06-06 11:12 (link)
	There aren't any posts about that. There is at least one thread talking about it, but it's not a huge thread, it's just a few people being petty because they can. And pettiness is not limited to people who are childfree. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	jexia 2006-06-04 00:13 (link)
	I was waiting for them to cotton on to that. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	yonmei 2006-06-04 00:15 (link)
	Me too. :-( (Reply to this) (Parent)

	isarma 2006-06-04 06:03 (link)
	Yup. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	taosma 2006-06-04 07:31 (link)
	that really sucks. hopefully there is more of us then them, and its also sad that its come to that... us or them. :/ (Reply to this)

	joy_disaster 2006-06-04 17:18 (link)
	wow, I have said it before, and I'll say it again; This issue hurts everyone, all women everywhere and they are willing to overlook their own self intertest in order to hate children, and the attached mothers they never had. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	yonmei 2006-06-05 22:34 (link)
	Sorry - I accidentally unscreened a trolled comment addressed to you. I've been unscreening the anonymous comments that are in a separate thread for our own amusement, but when they're pestering us directly, that's not on. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2006-06-04 22:30 (link)
	Childfree does not equal childhater. Besides, if you folks feel it's important enough to try and make a point, why get upset when the other side feels that it is also important enough to make a point? Isn't that to be expected? There are two sides to every issue, and getting offended that the other side is getting involved strikes me as a little silly. (Reply to this) (Thread)

yonmei
2006-06-05 00:37 (link)

Childfree does not equal childhater.

I used to think that: but judging by what spew is coming out of the childfree communities on livejournal, I am now wrong. Language moves on, I guess.

Besides, if you folks feel it's important enough to try and make a point, why get upset when the other side feels that it is also important enough to make a point?

The "other side" being the people who are prudish enough to think that an exposed breast - even to feed a child - is an obscene sight: or who are "childfree" (read: child haters) and can't stand the sight of a baby at breast?

These people think that their own selfish need not to see a baby breastfeeding - even in a 100 by 100 pixel icon - is as important as our wish to publicly support public breastfeeding. It's not surprising that there are people who are that selfish and self-centred, but, yes, it is upsetting to encounter them.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Anonymous)
2006-06-05 10:37 (link)

Except for the fact that the issue isn't banning breastfeeding icons. You just can't have it as a DEFAULT icon. If you want to, you can use it for every single post you make, just as long as it isn't the default icon. Default icons come up when you search for users, and in some cultures any nudity could be a severe taboo. The internet isn't just for America, it's for other cultures as well.

If someone had a default icon of two totally nude people having sex, would you agree that it isn't appropriate for children under 13 to see? And yet, there are children under 13 that browse Livejournal. Icons of topless women would therefore also be considered inappropriate for young children to see. Breastfeeding is natural, yes, and involves forming a bond between mother and infant. However, sex is also natural, and involves forming a bond between the two partners involved. In fact, without sex, there wouldn't be any babies to breastfeed. So what's the difference?

I honestly don't see why you folks are getting so upset over this. LiveJournal is a free service, unless you want to pay for more features, and having to click twice to post with an icon instead of having it happen automatically seems like a pointless thing to protest. Why not put more effort towards protesting more important issues, like problems in the foster care system or trying to get universal health care? In the grand scheme of things, the right to use a 100x100 pixel image without having to go through the effort of clicking the mouse twice is rather petty.

As I recall, the rules say that you CAN have breastfeeding as a default icon as long as the nipple and aerola are not visible. It is very easy to have the baby positioned in a way that makes these parts covered, and still have a breastfeeding picture. And the icon would be allowed.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	yonmei 2006-06-05 10:41 (link)
	So what's the difference? If you really don't know what the difference is between breastfeeding and sex, I suggest that you read a good basic biology textbook. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Screened Post)

(Screened Post)

(Not the same anon as above, as IPs will show.) - (Anonymous), 2006-06-05 15:18:20

Re: (Not the same anon as above, as IPs will show.) - jexia, 2006-06-06 00:46:16

Re: (Not the same anon as above, as IPs will show.) - jexia, 2006-06-06 01:04:45

Re: (Not the same anon as above, as IPs will show.) - muninnhuginn, 2006-06-06 02:19:19

Re: (Not the same anon as above, as IPs will show.) - jexia, 2006-06-06 02:37:49

Re: (Not the same anon as above, as IPs will show.) - pickledginger, 2006-06-07 18:55:17

Re: (Not the same anon as above, as IPs will show.) - (Anonymous), 2006-06-06 06:07:12

Re: (Not the same anon as above, as IPs will show.) - nicky__s, 2006-06-07 08:37:56

Re: (Not the same anon as above, as IPs will show.) - jexia, 2006-06-07 13:24:34

Re: breastfeeding icons v. obscenity - pickledginger, 2006-06-07 19:05:22

Trying to think of a good user name... - (Anonymous), 2006-06-08 18:36:33

Brava! - yonmei, 2006-06-06 06:49:36

Re: Brava! - jexia, 2006-06-06 13:22:29

Re: Brava! - jexia, 2006-06-06 13:24:50

Re: Brava! - yonmei, 2006-06-06 15:13:37

Re: (Not the same anon as above, as IPs will show.) - _broken_halo_, 2006-06-06 08:22:27

Re: (Not the same anon as above, as IPs will show.) - (Anonymous), 2006-06-06 11:20:13

Re: (Not the same anon as above, as IPs will show.) - jexia, 2006-06-06 20:05:55

Re: (Not the same anon as above, as IPs will show.) - jexia, 2006-06-06 20:06:17

Re: (Not the same anon as above, as IPs will show.) - (Anonymous), 2006-06-07 06:50:48

Re: (Not the same anon as above, as IPs will show.) - yonmei, 2006-06-07 06:57:39

?? - pickledginger, 2006-06-07 19:10:41

Re: (Not the same anon as above, as IPs will show.) - therealdaae, 2006-06-07 12:50:38

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2006-06-06 11:25:59

(no subject) - jexia, 2006-06-06 20:20:07

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2006-06-07 06:58:35

(no subject) - jexia, 2006-06-07 13:13:12

Re: (Not the same anon as above, as IPs will show.) - (Anonymous), 2006-06-09 23:00:14

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2006-06-06 18:16:35

(no subject) - yonmei, 2006-06-06 23:10:30

(Anonymous)
2006-06-06 19:40 (link)
In fact, without sex, there wouldn't be any babies to breastfeed. So what's the difference?

while not involving myself in the breastfeeding icon debate, I just want to say there is a great deal of difference between nuturing an infant by breastfeeding and a sexual act.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - jexia, 2006-06-07 13:14:58

(no subject) - pickledginger, 2006-06-07 19:15:14

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2006-06-09 16:59:25

(no subject) - yonmei, 2006-06-10 00:37:32

pickledginger
2006-06-07 18:44 (link)
Actually, an icon that shows any number of totally nude people having sex is okay under the new LiveJournal/SixApart standards, so long as the genitals are covered and the nipples and aureolae of any woman/women involved are not exposed.

That's part of the reason people are upset. The old standard at least was arguable. The new one is laughable.
(Reply to this) (Parent)

pickledginger
2006-06-07 20:17 (link)
As I recall, the rules say that you CAN have breastfeeding as a default icon as long as the nipple and aerola are not visible

One problem with that policy is that it makes it impossible for many women of color to have such icons - and many other women whose aerola are particularly dark or large.

... the issue isn't banning breastfeeding icons. You just can't have it as a DEFAULT icon. If you want to, you can use it for every single post you make, just as long as it isn't the default icon ...

Actually, according to a statement in LJ community boob_nazis by a SixApart VP, the issue is images of breastfeeding in places where people would not reasonably expect graphic sexual content.That makes the current "default icon" debate only a small part of a much larger potential problem.

Also, the images of breastfeeding, with or without any nipple or aerola showing, were perfectly acceptable (under LiveJournal FAQs 111 and 112 and the LiveJournal Terms of Service) at the time they were banned from default use.

It was only after many LJ users had complained ... what? 1,500 or so people? ... that LiveJournal and SixApart revised the standard, and FAQ 111, too.

LiveJournal Abuse now is claiming it's been using the new standard for years. I fail to see how previous uneven and unannounced use of a standard contrary to the Terms of Service constitutes a justification for the company's behaviour.

Breastfeeding is natural, yes ... However, sex is also natural ... So what's the difference?

*boggles* Er, there is a difference, no, many differences, between feeding a baby and making a baby. The relevant one is that in most countries and according to LJ FAQ 112 (and the previous text of LJ FAQ 111), feeding a baby is not indecent or obscene.

Why not put more effort towards protesting more important issues

Where did you get the idea that we don't? And if that's your view, why are you putting so much energy into decrying a protest you consider trivial?

In the grand scheme of things, the right to use a 100x100 pixel image ... is rather petty.

In the grand scheme of things, so is the right to publish a single article. So is feeding a single child. So is preventing a single death from AIDS. So are most single actions that are worth doing.

But in the grand scheme of things, all that is necessary to ensure the triumph of evil is that the good people do nothing to prevent it.*

The suppression of breastfeeding is evil. The depiction of breastfeeding as indecent is evil. The suppression of free speech is evil. For that matter, the violation by LiveJournal and SixApart of their contract with their users (as expressed in the LiveJournal FAQs and Terms of Service) is evil -- not one of the world's greater evils, but evil, nonetheless.

(* "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke)
(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2006-06-05 05:55 (link)
You're right, there are two sides to every issue, but i've also read entries in that community where people have said that they agree with the issue but because it's the "stupid moos" they're opposing it.
How is that right?
(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

ambrosine
2006-06-06 17:55 (link)
Neither is going to have nothing but paragons of logic and manners. Some people fight just to fight.
(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - ambrosine, 2006-06-06 17:55:26

(Anonymous)
2006-06-06 09:51 (link)
I think that by taking a stance specifically about the breast feeding icons you have narrowed your potential support. If you had protested generally against the censorship implicit in the new policy you might have got more support from other communities.

But at the end of the day, its their forum, and its their rules, if they want to remove nudity from default icons, they can.
(Reply to this) (Thread)

pickledginger
2006-06-07 18:46 (link)
And, at the end of the day, if we don't like it, we can protest. We can leave. We can work to change the policy. We can do all three. Who knows, maybe we can even win.
(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2006-06-17 21:33 (link)
I'm sorry, but I don't think generalizing will fix anything. I'm happily childfree, and I most definetely do not hate children, I just don't want any of my own. I also don't have a problem with breastfeeding in public, as long as you aren't calling massive amounts of attention to it. A previous commeter above stated a very good point; that in SOME cultures, nudity (even that of a natural act like breastfeeding) could be offensive. There's also the point that even though small children aren't supposed to sign up for LJs, that doesn't mean they don't, and it doesn't mean that they can't see userpics that show up on a search, even if they aren't signed up for the service. I can see SA's point of view, and I'm sorry if that offends you. But I find it a little offensive that you're lumping all childfree people together as "child haters". Not all of us hate children, nor do all of us find breastfeeding offensive.
(Reply to this) (Thread)

yonmei
2006-06-18 06:10 (link)
I think that you are kind of missing the point of this post.

I'm childfree - according to the definition I've always used: I have no children, and I'm quite happy with that. But I've never joined any childfree communities on livejournal, because as far as I've been able to see from the communities, they consist mainly of people getting together to post either about how much they hate children and their mothers, or about how much they hate feeling pressured to have children. The latter I can sympathise with, but have nothing to contribute to: the former I detest.

This post consists of a screencap from a childfree community on livejournal which - with several other communities on livejournal - mixed in with the Nipplegate controversy on the anti-breastfeeding side. In particular, this community apparently was keen on the idea of sabotaging the Step Apart from Six Apart demo by stepping up their posting in order to cover the fact that a large number of people were deliberately not posting for a day or had deleted their journals. This is pure child-hatred/mother hatred, and it is a fact that it was stemming from these childfree communities.

You may prefer not to associate yourself with these people: fair enough. Neither would I. If you are not a member of this community, or of any of the other childhater communities on livejournal which were whipping up anti-breastfeeding sentiment in the recent controversy, you need not consider yourself included in this criticism.
(Reply to this) (Parent)

sorry..
achyls
2006-06-17 21:35 (link)
the previous anon comment about generalizations was mine, I forgot to login first...
(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: sorry..
yonmei
2006-06-18 06:03 (link)
Oh, fair enough. Thanks for logging in to explain that.
(Reply to this) (Parent)