Nicholas ([info]nhw) wrote,
@ 2006-06-01 08:19:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:livejournal

Public notice
I am joining the Great Breast Boycott of June 2006.

On 6 June this journal will be deleted, in protest at LiveJournal's stiupid policies about user icons, which effectively make breast-feeding too obscene to be depicted here.

More on why here, here, and here. It's a quiet form of protest - it doesn't cost me anything (heck, it even gains me time I would otherwise have spent on LJ) - but I hope it will send a message.


(Post a new comment)


[info]jdigital
2006-06-01 09:41 am UTC (link)
[info]nhw noooo

(Reply to this)

[info]minny
2006-06-01 09:42 am UTC (link)
Does that mean you're leaving LJ or is it a temporary thing?

(Reply to this)

[info]bennmorland
2006-06-01 09:47 am UTC (link)
I'm joining you.

(Reply to this)

[info]strictlytrue
2006-06-01 09:56 am UTC (link)
I understand your reasons for doing it, but I'll miss your postings!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]surliminal
2006-06-01 09:59 am UTC (link)
me too :(

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]bohemiancoast
2006-06-01 10:08 am UTC (link)
It's only a 48 hour delete though; not a mass movement to another host. *That* I think will come later if Six Apart fails to see sense.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]ajshepherd
2006-06-01 10:26 am UTC (link)
I suspect they really don't give a toss.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]crystalfrog
2006-06-01 03:49 pm UTC (link)
That's not going to make them sit up and take notice; if everyone that felt so strongly took their custom to another site permanently they might think about considering it. As yet, it is unfortunately piled with the rest of the actions people take under the mantle of "taking a stand on the internet". It's their site and they most likely won't change it because half a dozen users stop posting for two days.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]bohemiancoast
2006-06-01 05:30 pm UTC (link)
I considered that; and then concluded that even if there weren't very many of us, if I believed this thing then I should write about it and promulgate it. Partly it's that I can't believe that LJ is really taking this stance, just like I can't believe the number of people who are saying 'of course women should be able to breastfeed in public, provided they don't do it at a concert, or in the cinema, or at a gallery, and they're careful always to throw a blanket over the baby's head so that innocent victims don't catch a glimpse of breast...'.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]mireille21
2006-06-02 06:35 am UTC (link)
I find ths issue of breastfeeding in public a tricky one when considering that we live (in Australia) in a very multicultural society and I *know* that many people round where I live would be very offended by it because of their cultural background and I would like to think that I am consdierate of other peoples' feelings. I would like to think that there is a sensible middle ground however, whether I'm breastfeeding in a restaurant, gallery, concert or anywhere else I happen to be.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]elmyra
2006-06-01 10:20 am UTC (link)
[info]autopope pointed out that his beard should be banned on the same grounds ("secondary sexual charaacteristics")... ;-)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]thette
2006-06-01 10:26 am UTC (link)
They edited that really quick. Now it's nudity that's banned.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]jdigital
2006-06-01 10:40 am UTC (link)
Just as well, I think if you look closely my own user icon contains "pubic hair".

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]bopeepsheep
2006-06-01 10:59 am UTC (link)
The 'secondary sexual characteristics' line never was in the TOS or FAQ, it came from a particularly stupid LJ Abuse Team response. Headless chickens, running around spewing inanities rather than staying calm and working with everyone to reword the policy acceptably.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]thette
2006-06-01 05:24 pm UTC (link)
It was in the FAQ, but only for a very short time.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]bopeepsheep
2006-06-01 05:29 pm UTC (link)
Interesting. Any screenshots? That one seems to have escaped the archiving I've seen...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]thette
2006-06-01 05:38 pm UTC (link)
No, and I no longer remember where I saw it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]pocketnaomi
2006-06-01 10:53 am UTC (link)
I'll be sorry to lose you -- you make interesting reading. Stay in touch by email or something, please?

(Reply to this)

[info]elmyra
2006-06-01 12:29 pm UTC (link)
Dare I even stick my neck out on this? Personally, I don't care about breastfeeding either way. I imagine at some point in future I will, at which point I will also make the effort to get all the relevant information and make an informed choice on the subject. At this point I don't have all the relevant information.

Anyway, tangent aside, the thing that bother sme slightly about this whole controversy is that one of the "demands" is that Six Apart should "make clear that they support breast feeding". I'm sorry, but should Six Apart not make clear that it is none of their business to either support or not support breast feeding and have done with it? Six Apart is a company whose products have absolutely nothing to do with motherhood or breast feeding and therefore really couldn't care less about the subject (or at least that's how they should feel about it). In addition, I don't see why any woman in their right mind should consider Six Apart to be an authority on the subject and care about whether they support breast feeding.

Bottom line - while I agree that banning the icons is daft, I don't think Six Apart should even have an opion on breast feeding. See above comment about makig an informed decision.

Rant over.

(Reply to this)
please find a better blogging platform...
(Anonymous)
2006-06-01 01:41 pm UTC (link)
... such as WordPress. There are many sites offering free WordPress blogs. I am not aware of any that have a nursing-hostile policy.
Andrew, who blogs at changingway.net (and elsewhere).

(Reply to this)(Thread)
Re: please find a better blogging platform...
[info]redfiona99
2006-06-01 02:04 pm UTC (link)
Of all the innummerable things to complain about LJ, somehow, their view on breast-feeding is oddly enough, one that isn't going to make me change my blogging site. I don't actually see them as being nursing hostile, so much as not liking pictures of breasts on display. While I may consider it deeply silly to object to it, I'm playing with their toys so I'm going to play by their rules.

(Reply to this)(Parent)
Re: please find a better blogging platform...
[info]jdigital
2006-06-01 03:47 pm UTC (link)
A free Wordpress blog is hardly more prestigious than a free Livejournal. The point of Wordpress is that you have your own site rather than availing of someone else's service - like driving a car instead of relying on public transport. When it's provided by a free host, Wordpress is largely just Livejournal without any of the community aspect and familiarity that makes Livejournal great.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]sinclair_furie
2006-06-01 01:58 pm UTC (link)
Oh, we will miss you! Though there's a comment below about it only being a temporary delete, so that is a bit confusing.
Well, power to the people, nonetheless.

(Reply to this)

[info]sammywol
2006-06-01 02:17 pm UTC (link)
Oh Thankyou! I was starting to wonder who would pick this up, if anyone. Guess I'll be not chatting to you next Tuesday then.

(Reply to this)

[info]pickwick
2006-06-01 02:23 pm UTC (link)
Oooh, bit of spin there. You can't show nudity in *default* icons. You can show breastfeeding that doesn't involve nipples, and you can show anything you like in non-default icons. It's because they have a nudity clause, and nothing to do with not supporting breastfeeding. Why should they make exceptions to their rules? Does every company have to actively support breast-feeding?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]leedy
2006-06-01 03:27 pm UTC (link)
..except the nudity clause was only added recently, possibly (correct me if I'm wrong) when somebody complained about a breastfeeding icon. Previously, the criteria were sex and violence.

breastfeeding that doesn't involve nipples

I'd love to hear how that works!

But seriously, I am boggled at how seeing a tiny bit of nipple (which some women just can't help showing when they breastfeed - it really depends on the shape of the breast/nipple/baby) suddenly makes it go from PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE to EEK NUDE COVER THE CHILDREN'S EYES LEST THEY BE CORRUPTED BY THE NUDDINESS.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]pickwick
2006-06-01 03:41 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, it was only added recently when the whole breastfeeding thing blew up on them, forcing them to clarify their rules. Someone complained about [info]hardvice's icon here, the icon got banned, and in retaliation he reported a ton of breastfeeding icons just to start up this sort of fuss. With all the fuss, LJ had to be more specific in their rules and guidelines.

I could probably have phrased the bit about nipples better :)

Obviously I don't think seeing breastfeeding's offensive, but I can see how LJ have been forced to clarify their rules, and I don't think an exception should necessarily be made for breastfeeding, or for art, or anything else. "Sex and violence" are very vague criteria and impossible to be fair in policing, as whether something is a sexual image depends very much on the eye of the beholder. Nudity is much more specific. I think they would have to ban male topless pics too though...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]leedy
2006-06-01 03:50 pm UTC (link)
or for art, or anything else.

Look! LIVE NUDE DURER! Nipples!

Nudity is much more specific, sure, but it does result in a disturbing implication that they believe (or they think their subscribers believe) all nudity is offensive/sexual. Which, in the case of breastfeeding, for instance, it isn't. At all.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]leedy
2006-06-01 03:41 pm UTC (link)
Did a bit more digging around, and yes, it looks like it used to be that you couldn't have anything with "graphic sexual or violent content" in your default image. Which only covers an image of a breastfeeding woman if you have a very strange mind.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]bopeepsheep
2006-06-01 05:38 pm UTC (link)
Well, you often see areolae (not nipples) when women are nursing. If LJ Abuse see the areola in the pic, they threaten to suspend, if they don't, well, they don't. Women can't help a) their skin colour b) their particular pigmentation c) the size of their areolae and d) the size of their baby's head. So I, a pale-ish skinned woman with a large-headed child can have a perfectly legitimate breastfeeding default icon, but the darker-skinned mother of a newborn can't? Hmmm. Not good.

When women want to use breastfeeding icons, it's to show that it is a normal everyday activity, not sexual, titillating, or worthy of remark. Having to fight for the right to be normal sucks. There'd be no comparable outcry about default icons of bottle-fed children, despite the health issues. It's not about being natural per se (because people always then turn this into the excretion-is-natural argument, which is so NOT a good analogy!) more like if we were all allowed icons of McDonalds burgers but not of rare steak "because the blood is icky". LJ promotes heart disease! LJ supports immoral corporations! ;-)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Anonymous)
2006-06-01 03:15 pm UTC (link)
Have you written letters? It's illegal to request that breastfeeding mothers be asked to leave a public place, so I'm pretty sure that this is equally illegal. I've told LJ I'm cancelling my paid account.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]crystalfrog
2006-06-01 04:09 pm UTC (link)
It's their private, members-only community, not a public place. Your rights are all mixed up.

(Reply to this)(Parent)
Since they're in my neck of the woods...
[info]applez
2006-06-01 03:16 pm UTC (link)
I may go to their offices over my lunch hour. Only a few blocks away.

(Reply to this)

[info]crystalfrog
2006-06-01 04:11 pm UTC (link)
Frankly a more effective protest would be a post about the unfairness of this situation, followed by hundreds of sympathetic comments from fellow LJ users. A slice of their demographic signing on the dotted line saying "I'm not down with this" may have more of an impact than depriving your faithful readers of your intergalacticnational adventures.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]realcdaae
2006-06-01 04:27 pm UTC (link)
There's a petition going around calling for Six Apart to reform LJ abuse (for a variety of reasons) too.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]crystalfrog
2006-06-01 04:28 pm UTC (link)
Good. That makes sense.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]luned
2006-06-01 05:31 pm UTC (link)
I was going to say "no comment" but I've always found this sort of thing to be stupid. If you do leave permanently, leave a pointer.

(Reply to this)

[info]deannahoak
2006-06-01 10:41 pm UTC (link)
Hey, [info]ccfinlay pointed me here, and you look like someone I'd get along great with. I'm adding you to my f'list.

(Reply to this)

[info]wwhyte
2006-06-02 09:42 pm UTC (link)
What happens to your archives if you delete your journal?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]nhw
2006-06-02 09:59 pm UTC (link)
You have thirty days to undelete the journal (at least, so they say) which seems to leave all intact. I back up mine anyway with LJArchive. (Which has led to rather a big archive by now...)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…