They're not "feeding their children", they're making some sort of statement, which is entirely within their rights, but it has nothing to do with survival. When I eat I don't post action photos online.
You don't; millions of Facebook users exercise the right to do so without having their photos removed. Look at the photos you do post of you doing whatever activity you consider central to your life and how your friends and family perceive you. Now imagine that Facebook prevented such photos. Wouldn't you find it annoying enough to raise a public outcry?
Now imagine that what Facebook has decided to censor is not just some hobby of interest mainly to you, but a cause about which you care passionately and which profoundly affects every single member of every generation. It's a legitimate "think of the children!" situation.
I don't mind Bill Gates working to eradicate malaria, just don't let him post pictures of filthy people in attire Westerners would consider improper. Ewww.
Breastfeeding is coming back, and children are reaping the health benefits, precisely because concerned women have been dragging our culture back from its neurotic denial of it for over half a century now. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Leche_League.
Fine! Breast milk for everyone! I'm in favor. Like I said in my original comment, I think both sides are idiotic. Facebook is idiotic for censoring annoying but harmless propaganda (you said it) photos of women feeding their children in the semi-nude, and the women are idiotic for caring what 27-year-old Mark Zuckerberg thinks of their beautiful exposed breasts.
Yeah, I may find it annoying if Facebook disapproves of any activity I'd like to publicize to the world, but thankfully, we've got tumblr and other sites where we can post photos of us doing (almost) whatever the hell we want. I'd just go to tumblr (Note: I am in no way affiliated with tumblr, nor do I have a tumblr blog, or a Facebook account for that matter).
I take absolutely no part in the argument, and all I'm saying (for the last time) is: the way this protest is expressed, its origin and its target are interesting.
You can post whatever you like on your own blog, but I think what these women want is the ability to have their posts seen by their friends and family. For a huge majority of the people I know, Facebook is the only way to do that.
I don't think either side is idiotic. I believe Facebook has a real need to improve its system so that it doesn't have to hold the entire world to a single parochial standard of propriety. And these women are encouraging it to do so. The only measure of their approach that matters to them is whether it is effective. Time will tell.
What would be interesting to me is your proposal for a better way to achieve their goals, and why you believe it would be more effective.
Well, if I were approached by such a woman, I would tell her that she should post her photos on posterous, tumblr, flickr or other similar services, and link to them from Facebook.
But I'm really not looking for solutions. Just enjoing the moment when "in 2012 an idealist group of women took to the streets of the Western world in anger, with bare breasts and suckling babies in their arms to protest the actions of 27-year-old Mark Zuckerberg who runs a large, popular communication/vicarious-living/ego-stroking/stalking website (or 'virtual social networks' as they were called) to demand of him to allow them to publish photographs of them breastfeeding their newborns."
