Facebook orders breast-feeding photos off member pages

Pat wrote:

<quoted text>
There is nothing more beautiful than the belly of a woman big and blooming with the potential yet to be.

I can think of plenty of things more beautiful. Keep it covered.

Jennifer wrote:

I agree that breast feeding is a wonderful act of nature and that it is best for baby. I am a mother of 4 and I breast fed 2 of my babies and I am convinced that my children that were breast fed were healthier and had less colds than the 2 that were not..... HOWEVER... I just don't understand why this has to be such a problem. If we were in public and I had to breast feed - I did it with a light blanket draped over myself for privacy and didn't have to show my boobs to the world. No big deal. Problem solved....most of the time most people didn't even know I was nursing......there. No controversy

Absolutely- I always make sure to eat under a blanket too. I find that the stuffy atmosphere is just what I enjoy.

While I am not a mother and have no vested interest in the breastfeeding process, it appears to me that the sexualization of women's bodies is what is under fire here.
Breasts are for feeding children. They have been commodified and exploited for sexual and financial purposes, which are often inextricably linked. That they should be seen as profane or in any way vulgar during the act of feeding a child is unnacceptable.
Can we not support the valuing of women's bodies engaging in wholesome nurturing, and see it as morally neutral?
I am not a Facebook person, but I understand that access to these photos is somewhat limited to the circle of friends who have permission to view same. If an individual is affronted by these images, perhaps s/he might choose to disconnect from that circle. How reasonable and simple. Just don't go there.
Why not boycott Facebook? Who needs it? Vote with your feet and leave it. Surely this sort of social networking can be done in different formats.
Best wishes for a respectful outcome.
a

ct_lmoran wrote:

Ladies, put away your breasts, please!
So says Facebook, which has been removing breast-feeding photos from member pages, arguing they violate its decency policy.
Moms—and some dads—are striking back, launching a full-frontal attack on the Palo Alto-based social networking giant.
Continue reading here:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/health...

I can't smoke in public, so please don't show your nips in public. Even as a woman I find it incredibly offensive. If you don't like facebook's rules don't use it.

It isn't about breastfeeding. Its about gender discrimination. Facebook is a CALIFORNIA corporation and is a place of public accommodation (websites are the same as stores, hotels, restaurants, etc, under CA law). As such it must treat is male and female consumers EQUALLY. Facebook does not delete photographs of men who are displaying "nipples and arreolas" such as photos of men in bathings suits. It also does not require that nude photos of small naked children (think toddlers running around in the sprinklers on a hot summer day) be taken down. Facebook ONLY takes down WOMEN's "nipples and arreolas". That is discrimination and as such Facebook is liable to litigation (which it is going to lose) over removing only photos of WOMEN. Good luck Facebook may the lawsuits cost you your business

Chicago Tough wrote:

Facebook is allowed to regulate its content. Just more feminazis trying to force their agenda on everyone.

Facebook is only allowed to regulate its content in a gender neutral manner. They CHOOSE to be a CALIFORNIA corpoartion and have their headquarters in California. The woman in question who's photos started this "uproar" is also a Californian. In California public accommodations must treat men and women equal. Facebook does NOT require that photos of men displaying their nipples and arreolas be removed. Furthermore, Facebook is removing lots of photos that do NOT display the nipple or arreola. Facebook is lying AND discriminating. Hopefully they are paying their lawyers very well cause I sense major litigation in their future

The human body is filthy and ALL representations of it should be BANNED!

Marie wrote:

<quoted text>
Facebook is only allowed to regulate its content in a gender neutral manner. They CHOOSE to be a CALIFORNIA corpoartion and have their headquarters in California. The woman in question who's photos started this "uproar" is also a Californian. In California public accommodations must treat men and women equal. Facebook does NOT require that photos of men displaying their nipples and arreolas be removed. Furthermore, Facebook is removing lots of photos that do NOT display the nipple or arreola. Facebook is lying AND discriminating. Hopefully they are paying their lawyers very well cause I sense major litigation in their future

Actually, like most American corporations, Facebook Inc. is incorporated in Delaware.

I agree that breast feeding a a very natural thing but still believe that it is a "Private" thing and can't help but wonder why women would want to post a picture of themselves & baby on the internet for the whole world to see???? Just because it's a natural thing to do does not mean that everyone wants to see you do it. Where has the meaning of privacy and decency gone??? Our generation has gone so far away from it in the name of "its our rights" that we have lost site of the plain old fashion sense of pride. What will that child think when he/she grows up- right now they have no choice or say in what that mother is doing so please stick to your own homestead and not try and invade everyone elses.

Mert wrote:

I agree that breast feeding a a very natural thing but still believe that it is a "Private" thing and can't help but wonder why women would want to post a picture of themselves & baby on the internet for the whole world to see???? Just because it's a natural thing to do does not mean that everyone wants to see you do it. Where has the meaning of privacy and decency gone??? Our generation has gone so far away from it in the name of "its our rights" that we have lost site of the plain old fashion sense of pride. What will that child think when he/she grows up- right now they have no choice or say in what that mother is doing so please stick to your own homestead and not try and invade everyone elses.

"Decency"?

There's noting indecent about a mother breastfeeding her baby.

In fact, I can't even think of a more beautiful sight in all the world.

And there's nothing about this for the child to be embarassed about in the future.

La Leche wrote:

<quoted text>
"Side issue"?!? that "side issue" is part of what got the woman pregnant in the first place, lady. And the fact that breasts are for breastfeeding doesn't give anyone the right to engage in that behavior around others who might not be so comfortable with the situation. If I can't light up my smoke around you, you can't pull out your boobs in front of me!

lighting up causes damage to me...second hand smoke kills...second hand breastfeeding does no such thing other than to show other people that breastfeeding isn't scary, is convenient, and is normal.
i don't have kids but i do recognize that breast milk is the healthiest thing for them...want lower health bills as a nation we should encourage more breastfeeding - studies support the connection.

lashley wrote:

<quoted text>
lighting up causes damage to me...second hand smoke kills...second hand breastfeeding does no such thing other than to show other people that breastfeeding isn't scary, is convenient, and is normal.
i don't have kids but i do recognize that breast milk is the healthiest thing for them...want lower health bills as a nation we should encourage more breastfeeding - studies support the connection.

Breast-fed babies also grow up to have higher IQs than those who are fed formula.

Wow, I wish people would stop thinking of this as a debate about breastfeeding. It's about PICTURES of breastfeeding. Condemning pictures of breastfeeding is NOT condemnation of breastfeeding itself.

The point is that what is or is not attractive is entirely SUBJECTIVE. Individuals make that determination; it's not ONE beauty scale that fits all beholders.

Can't tell if you missed the point or just wanted to express your opinion.

Don't thrust what you find beautiful on all others.

Pat wrote:

<quoted text>
There is nothing more beautiful than the belly of a woman big and blooming with the potential yet to be.
As long as I see these pregnant women tottering with their bellies big I rest easy and comfortable and remember when too was just a step away from the mysteries of God's designs in allowing we females to take part in being co-creators of life to be.

You seem to have missed the point while making assumptions (as many "proud americans" are prone to do). I've never searched for any images. Putting this stuff out there for all to see is pathetic.

The point is that what is or is not attractive is entirely SUBJECTIVE. Individuals make that determination. You can't thrust what you find beautiful onto others and expect them to accept it (well, you could, but you'd be disappointed).

Proud American wrote:

<quoted text>If you dont want to look at breasts or anything else then dont look at it. Why are you looking for those images on the net any way if they offend you. HHHUUUMMM I dont get it.You dont want cancer than dont smoke. Its that simple.
I just dont get it......

Having nursed my son about3 years, 5 months into the pregnancy with my twins, it was a joy to nurse him anywhere! I felt so proud to be offering the best nutrition and nurturing to my little son. And to nurse my twins even longer brought the bonding even closer. People who have never done this, don't know what joy they are missing.