You are part of the problem.

[tim]

A Facebook friend linked to this blog post about why you're not a feminist if you think breast-feeding women should cover up, which I liked. So I read some other posts on the same blog. A post with the title "Pink, feminism and gender cues" caught my eye, because pink and feminism are both things that I love. Lo and behold, we have soi-disant feminists writing comments like:

"My son likes pink too. I think society has already gotten to him because he knows the difference between boys clothes and girls clothes. We do buy him pink shirts when they are available in the boys section (e.g. pink polo shirt from Old Navy), but I have found myself wanting to curb his interest in girl stuff in the past out of a fear of him being made fun of." (the author)

"I try to gently encourage more gender appropriate choices for his own protection." (commenter "Rebecca")

"My son always seems to grab for the pink sparkly shoes in stores too. Eh, I just tell him they’re for girls. I am comfortable enough in my status as a feminist that it doesn’t bother me to say it." (commenter "Lynn")

And so on. Does it occur to these people that by denying their sons pink sparkly stuff for their own "protection", they're perpetuating the social norms that make it dangerous for a little boy to wear pink? After all, if more of those boys got to wear pink, they'd be a harder target for bullying (safety in numbers, as well as normalization of what's currently considered transgressive). Does it occur to them that they're creating potential bullies who may pick on smaller boys later because those boys are getting to wear the pink stuff that they themselves were denied when they wanted it?

Does it occur to them that maybe, just maybe, they're acting not so much out of desire to protect their child as desire to protect themselves from possible discomfort and embarrassment resulting from appearing in public as the parent of a little boy wearing a pink tutu?

In conclusion: no, you are not a feminist if you tell your son he can't have something because it's for girls, any more than if you tell your daughter she can't have something because it's for boys.

Comments

[wkfauna.livejournal.com]

I've been trying for a long time to decide what I think on the subject of public breastfeeding. I don't generally care, but there are instances when I think it's inappropriate, particularly in restaurants. There are many other similarly inappropriate behaviors that I could avoid being subjected to if only I averted my eyes, but I think that it doesn't make the behaviors any less inappropriate (things like picking one's nose, etc).

So do you by extension think that it is not feminist to think that non-nursing women should cover their breasts in public? Because I don't buy the "nursing breasts are special because they are being used for something NATURAL" line of reasoning.

[juli]

Everything women do is magical and special and should be shared with the world, because if it were something men did that would be the case.

(Which, no, it wouldn't. Discussions of jock straps are frowned upon in inappropriate contexts. Farting is taboo for everyone. Likewise itching genitals and ass. Bodily functions are not always pleasant. I understand that many breastfeeding mothers find the process beautiful, but I don't understand the equation of that with the objective "breastfeeding is beautiful" that is so widespread. See also: not watching sausages getting made.)

[wkfauna.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that. Somehow nursing babies and sushi just don't go together for me! :D

[malka]

I think the "breastfeeding is beautiful" movement is trying to counteract the "breastfeeding is icky and gross and nasty and put that away because we're trying to eat here" movement[1]. I think in a less vicious environment, most people would have the view of breastfeeding that they do of babies in general: some people would think it's wonderful, some people would think it's boring, and some people would think it's kind of weird and not sit next to it.

[1] Eating of any sort is an animal function that is kind of icky and gross and nasty, if you think about it. Chewing is even grosser. It's a stage of digestion, right there in public where anyone can see you doing it.

[juli]

I don't chew with my mouth open and rarely meet other adults who do.

[tim]

So? If you're chewing, I still know you're digesting food, whether your mouth is open or not. Babies don't typically suck with their mouths open, either.

[juli]

And I can tell that someone is breastfeeding even if they cover up?

[tim]

Then it doesn't matter whether they cover up?

[juli]

The socially¹-accepted way to get around "digesting is gross" is to chew with your mouth closed, and people who have a problem beyond that are encouraged to not eat in public. People who chew with their mouths open are, to a lesser extent as one gets older, ostracized. Likewise, the etiquette around breastfeeding has been covering up or doing it in a private area. But I think we've decided different points at which to frame the analogy, which is the fun of using analogies and arguing on the Internet.

1: All of this is mostly about middle-class white culture. My experiences with lower-class white culture and other ethnic groups is that neither of these taboos is as present in many of them.

[tim]

I guess I have a low tolerance for thinking the world would fall apart if there were more naked breasts (with or without babies attached to them) in public; I also have very little tendency to be grossed out or disgusted by things, possibly because I don't have much indignation left over for that after dealing with a typical day. I find it interesting, though, that there are more comments on this post about breastfeeding (which I just brought up for context) than the point I was trying to make; I'm not sure what that says.

[juli]

Breasts are divisive.

There are two problems, I suppose: the false dichotomy between women's chests and men's chests (and the chests of men who were assigned female at birth, etc.) in terms of public exposure, and the issues of sexualization around breasts, which also has the function of making some women who would breastfeed openly in public uncomfortable because of the feeling that they will be sexualized for doing so.

The other is to what extent breastfeeding is something that public establishments should be expected to make reasonable accommodations for (of?), and which they cannot prohibit on the basis of dress code. Given that there's no shortage of restaurants using dress codes to discriminate against the visibly-disabled, with no shortage of stupid slippery slope arguments that they use to justify their behavior to themselves, I don't think that can be ignored. It seems like some places have laws in place to prevent that, but I don't have a fucking clue how widespread that is.

Which kind of brings up how "gender-inappropriate" clothing and dress codes interact, which is really stupid.

[tim]

I think that someone who doesn't want to watch sausages getting made shouldn't eat sausages, and that someone who doesn't want to watch babies eating shouldn't support the continuation of the species.

[anemone.livejournal.com]

I think Tim mostly has it right that it's a reaction to the "oooh, yuk, do that somewhere else".

I wouldn't mind the "oooh, yuk, do that somewhere else" if breastfeeding took as little time as taking a dump. But with a breastfeeding mother of a newborn or young kid, if you say "no breastfeeding in public", it means "don't leave the house with your breastfeeding child" (and You Best Stay In the Bedroom If Someone Visits). They eat frequently, for a long time, and often unpredictably. Covering up is great in theory, but in practice it didn't work for me. I needed two hands for the early months, which left nothing to adjust the cover. And babies squirm and sometimes pull it off. Plus, the part where there's actually anything showing is when the baby latches on, which is when you most need both hands in use. I could have gotten something look a hooter hider, but that made me feel like a giant flashing sign saying "Breastfeeding Woman Here." In contrast, with proper clothes, once baby is on to the casual observer you're just holding the baby. (Pumping isn't a good solution for other reasons.)

Also, while I'd agree that breastfeeding can be special, it's not more special than many other parentin thins, and like many other parenting things, it can also be REALLY ANNOYING.

[wkfauna.livejournal.com]

Thanks for this. That's probably the best argument against "yuk public breast": that if others don't put up with it then it effectively confines a breastfeeding woman to her house. That's a huge burden to accommodate the delicate sensibilities of others.

[juli]

Right, I completely get the practicality of it and the practical implications of "don't breastfeed in public — shouldn't you be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen anyway?", but I find the rhetoric that says that it needs to be shared with the world, is beautiful, etc., inane. It's a direct response to "breasfeeding is gross", sure, but I don't think that taking up the framing of opponents is always good or even most expedient, especially when it requires intellectual dishonesty (or the belief that you can convince others of what is beautiful rather than what you have a right to do.)

[tim]

You're really kicking the heck out of that strawman, but...

I guess the only extent to which I've seen pro-breastfeeding people say that it actively *needs* to be shared with the world is the extent to which they say that normalizing breastfeeding would help people who choose breastfeeding in cases where the deciding factor is how comfortable they'd be doing it in public. The more people doing it, the more people helping create an environment where it's an option. And I'd agree with that.

[juli]

"Breastfeeding is beautiful" is the tagline on a big-ass banner on the linked site, I'm not sure it's a strawman. wkfauna opened with asking the idea about breastfeeding needing to be shared with the world, so in my responses it's not really a strawman — maybe it was when she brought it up, but in response to her trying to reframe the question to be about anything else would be, no?

I think that "breastfeeding is beautiful" is probably there to provide a complementary function. For the people breastfeeding who want to do it in public in the open but who are afraid to, but who just can't embrace "fuck your etiquette, I'm going to do what I want", they can reframe it for themselves and get to a point where they're comfortable doing it in public even though the broader social context might be telling them that they shouldn't be. That seems useful enough, but it isn't very useful externally. And maybe it isn't ever implied to be and I've just repeatedly found myself in environments targeting nursing people.

[anemone.livejournal.com]

....I don't think that taking up the framing of opponents is always good or even most expedient, especially when it requires intellectual dishonesty (or the belief that you can convince others of what is beautiful rather than what you have a right to do.)

I agree.

[naath]

Why should people not do things just because you don't want to watch?

I mean, *I* don't want to watch people drive cars. Or try to walk around in 7 inch heels. Or put in contact lenses. Or many other things. I don't go around trying to impose my views on what is "not nice to watch" on other people though, I either avert my eyes or simply live with it.

Sure, I don't much want to watch a nursing baby while I'm eating. I don't much want to watch some grown ups eat either (and I'm dead certain there are people who find watching me eat unpleasant). Babies have to eat, just like other humans. Would you want to have to eat your dinner in the loo? I wouldn't, I wouldn't condemn a baby to have to do so either.

[tim]

So do you by extension think that it is not feminist to think that non-nursing women should cover their breasts in public?

Yes, I do think that. Since it's acceptable for men to expose their breasts in (some) public contexts, there's no reason to maintain a double standard for women.

[juli]

Thank you, especially for the comment about creating bullies. Children who are "protected" and "corrected" from transgression tend to want to "help" other children in turn. Sigh.

[shemale]

sounds pretty feminist to me, actually

[eriktrips]

I am comfortable enough in my status as a feminist

what does this mean? she has tenure as a feminist and so now she can do stupid things without being fired? she's earned her dues? or feminism has done all it needs to do to make her comfortable and so she's not willing to give that comfort up especially where feminism--ideally, at least--might ask her to do so?

[tim]

she has tenure as a feminist and so now she can do stupid things without being fired?

+1 for this

[rebbyribs.livejournal.com]

I think that part of raising a child is teaching them the social norms of the culture, so that he or she is later able to make the choice to conform or not.

I guess it seems to me that there's an age (toddler) when boys can wear sparkly tutus and it's cute and most people wouldn't think twice about it. My 3-year-old still doesn't know how to tell boys and girls apart and seems to use gender terms pretty interchangeably. But it seems like school-aged kids go through a phase of having pretty defined gender roles and mostly same-sex friendships. It seems to me that peer influence is really big then, and that it's a time when kids haven't developed all that much capacity for critical thinking. I would hope that anyone who identifies as a feminist would talk to their kids more about gender as they get older and encourage them to think beyond the social norms.

[tim]

One of the problems with that is when you teach a social norm, you're teaching a kid not just to obey it, but also to enforce it; whether you're actively teaching that or not, as others have pointed out, a kid who's been taught "don't wear pink sparkly things" is a kid who's going to enforce that rule on other kids in whatever way they know how.

The same argument could have been made at one point in that you should make your little girl wear skirts because it's more important that she conform to social norms than to be able to climb trees (if she wants). I would hope that not too many "progressive" people believe that now, but there's this double standard.

I guess I don't see why there should be a cut-off age where you suddenly get to make your own decisions about what trade-offs you get to make about fitting in vs. expressing yourself. Might as well start learning early. I'm not advocating for parents to *make* their kids do things they don't want to do just to advance the parent's political agenda -- I'm just advocating for parents not confusing their comfort with their kids' well-being.