/
    Skip to main content
    Advertisement
    Support Casa LA
    become a member free
    Polly Toynbee
    Support fearless, open, independent journalism
    Polly Toynbee
    Become a member of the Guardian for free
    When you register free or sign in to theguardian.com, we’re able to give you a better experience on our website. It also helps to support our journalism.

    Social media is protecting men from periods, breast milk and body hair

    Jessica Valenti
    Jessica Valenti
    Instagram took down a photo by artist Rupi Kaur that showed a small amount of her menstrual blood. When will society accept women’s bodies?
    period
    Tampons are still taboo online. Photograph: ??/taken from picture library
    Contact author
    There’s a predictable social media formula for what women’s pictures online should look like. Breasts in barely-there bikinis are good (thumbs-up emoji, even), but breasts with babies attached them are questionable. Women wearing next to nothing is commonplace, but if you’re over a size 10 your account may be banned. Close-up shots of women’s asses and hardly-covered vaginas are fine, so long as said body parts are hairless.
    And now, in a controversy that once again brings together technology, art, feminism and sex, Instagram is under fire for removing a self-portrait from artist Rupi Kaur that showed a small amount of her menstrual blood. Apparently having a period violates the site’s Terms of Service.
    The broader message to women couldn’t be clearer: SeXXXy images are appropriate, but images of women’s bodies doing normal women body things are not. Or, to put a more crass point on it: Only pictures of women who men want to fuck, please.
    As Kaur pointed out on her Tumblr account, Instagram is filled with pictures of underage girls who are “objectified” and “pornified.”
    “I will not apologize for not feeding the ego and pride of misogynist society that will have my body in underwear but not be okay with a small leak,” she wrote.
    Because, truly, it’s difficult to imagine women being offended by pictures of breastfeeding, unkempt bikini lines or period blood - that’s a standard Monday for a lot of us. It’s men that social media giants are “protecting” - men who have grown up on sanitized and sexualized images of female bodies. Men who have been taught to believe by pop culture, advertising and beyond that women’s bodies are there for them. And if they have to see a woman that is anything other than thin, hairless and ready for sex - well, bring out the smelling salts.
    As Kaur wrote: “Their misogyny is leaking.”
    Advertisement
    The upside, of course, is that the very nature of social media has made it easier for women to present a more diverse set of images on what the female form can look like and mean. Selfies, for example - thought by some to be the epitome of frivolity and self-conceit - are now being touted by feminist academics and artists as a way for women to “seize the gaze” and offer a new sense of control to women as subjects rather than objects.
    When we have the power to create our own images en masse, we have the power to create a new narrative - one that flies in the face of what the mainstream would like us to look and act like.
    To Instagram’s credit, the company restored Kaur’s picture after complaints - much as Facebook changed their standards to allow pictures of “women actively engaged in breastfeeding or showing breasts with post-mastectomy scarring.” Technology companies are starting to understand that if they want to put the power of pictures in their users’ hands, they’re going to have to be okay with women being fully human - not just mirror images of what pop culture wants us to be.
    As for the people who are scandalized by women’s bodies and their natural functions: You don’t have to “like” it, but you will have to live with it.

    comments (886)

    Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion.
    This discussion is closed for comments.
    We’re doing some maintenance right now. You can still read comments, but please come back later to add your own.
    Commenting has been disabled for this account (why?)
    1 2 3 4 12 next
    Loading comments… Trouble loading?
    • 116 117
      Women wearing next to nothing is commonplace, but if you’re over a size 10 your account may be banned. Close-up shots of women’s asses and hardly-covered vaginas are fine, so long as said body parts are hairless.
      you're just looking at the wrong websites
      Reply |
    • 13 14
      And if they have to see a woman that is anything other than thin, hairless and ready for sex - well, bring out the smelling salts.
      Dunno. I like a bit of chunkiness now and then, often in fact. Bush is back too, in some circles. Ready for sex, okay you got me there - we'd probably prefer it that way. But I'm a realist and it's totally cool if not, just you know - hope to be around when readiness happens.
      Then again, whatever you want and each to their own. But let's remember it's all entropy.
      Reply |
    • This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
    • 119 120
      Social media sites have policies that ban nudity. If you stick up photos showing your breasts, genitals, etc., and someone complains, don't be surprised if it's removed. I've seen this happen to breastfeeding women, I've also seen it happen to a lad who posted a picture of his bare bottom. I wasn't especially bothered in either case.
      As for period, etc., I can accept women's bodies without looking at photographs of their menstrual blood over my lunch break, thanks.
      Reply |
      • 106 107
        I think Jessica Valenti would find that it's women just as much as men who do not particularly want to see used tampons in their instagram / Facebook feed.
        But if you're programmed to see misogyny and sexism everywhere then that this is what you will see. 'Perception bias': it affects bigots of all types.
        Reply |
      • 41 42
        Any woman who is offended has been "conditioned by the patriarchy" though. They're to be treated like infants apparently.
        Reply |
      • 90 91
        I'm a woman and I don't want to see used tampons either. Neither do I want to see used toilet paper or snot-filled tissues/handkerchiefs. I know all these things exist (I produce them myself), but I don't want my nose rubbed in them, thank you.
        Reply |
    • 180 181
      Men who have been taught to believe by pop culture, advertising and beyond that women’s bodies are there for them
      Not for the first time, nor for the last time, allow me to say: this is utter crap.
      Reply |
    • 103 104
      Instagram took down a photo by artist Rupi Kaur that showed a small amount of her menstrual blood. When will society accept women’s bodies?
      Perhaps when society accepts images of male erections, ejaculations, abortions and shit.
      Reply |
    • 33 34
      The headline. Almost assumes that some people don't have an existence outside of social media. Wonder where that assumption comes from.
      Reply |
    • 5 6
      "Selfies, for example - thought by some to be the epitome of frivolity and self-conceit - are now being touted by feminist academics and artists as a way for women to “seize the gaze” and offer a new sense of control to women as subjects rather than objects."
      Also known as "SelfieCare" (a play on the word SelfCare), something I subscribe to whole-heartedly.
      Reply |
    • 9 10
      Social media is the zone for the facile and bland, ok for links to the odd interesting article but on the whole do not be surprised if those that love the bland take great offence. I thought they were supposed to take down all nudity etc? I don't know unless its illegal I don't care if people put up pictures of themselves in what ever. Though I don't want it to appear on my screen when my 2 year old is around. As for men being kept away from periods, breast feeding etc, well a lot of us are living with women who have periods and many of us have children so have been around breast feeding too. I saw the picture it was a bit so what but not that offensive.
      Reply |
      • 22 23
        Well actually, the sight of blood can be quite 'triggering' and from what I understand, there were no 'trigger warnings' on that instagram... You heard me right... not a single 'trigger warning'! So according to the rules of feminist netiquette, this instagram take-down was more than justified.
        Reply |
    • 108 109
      Selfies, for example - thought by some to be the epitome of frivolity and self-conceit - are now being touted by feminist academics and artists as a way for women to “seize the gaze” and offer a new sense of control to women as subjects rather than objects.
      Even the Onion and the Daily Mash would not come up with something so idiotic
      Reply |
      • 5 6
        Obviously they have missed the self portraits of Cindy Sherman? I think they did plenty to question the 'gaze'. Obviously they are not selfies as in they are thought out photographs.
        Reply |
    • 35 36
      And now, in a controversy that once again brings together technology, art, feminism and sex, Instagram is under fire for removing a self-portrait from artist Rupi Kaur that showed a small amount of her menstrual blood.
      The Patriarchy is scared of this woman's power! That's why it is oppressing her by removing photos of her bloody tampon from Instagram.
      Reply |
    • 54 55
      While I don't think this photo should have been removed (I believe it was removed by mistake, not some patriarchal conspiracy), you could say a poo in the toilet (or indeed in your trousers) is natural. That does not make it beautiful and does not mean others should have to see it.
      Reply |
      • 44 45
        A poo in your trousers is worth two in the toilet.
        Reply |
      • 26 27
        It was "accidentally" removed twice then. There are lots of images on Instagram that are not beautiful and that no-one should have to see yet they are not removed.
        The artist was making a point about the excessive outrage, condemnation and shaming with which people frequently react to something natural and entirely harmless while the actively harmful hyper-sexualisation, objectification and debasement of women is ubiquitous and accepted when not outright celebrated.
        Accidental or not, Instagram provided a perfect example.
        Reply |
      • 25 26
        Here's a little exercise for you, and when you're done you can inform your mentor, Ms. Valenti.
        1) Find out how many images Instagram processes per day.
        2) Find out how many people they have to censor images.
        3) Divide (1) by (2) and figure out how many images each censor does each day.
        4) Divide by 86400 to figure out how many that is per second.
        Come back with Ms. Valenti in tow and the two of you can tell us why every deletion you don't like is a conspiracy.
        Reply |
    • 8 9
      Message to heaadline writers: the word "media" is a plural noun and therefore takes a plural verb.
      Reply |
      • 18 19
        But "social media" is, I think, singular, so it's right after all.
        Reply |
      • 17 18
        Social media is an oxymoron. it's the most anti social thing there is. give me body fluids any time.
        Reply |
      • 4 5
        Message to heaadline writers: the word "media" is a plural noun and therefore takes a plural verb.
        I disagree. It isn't separate media that are supposed to be protecting men from things, because it is the content, or the policies within the social media industry, and not literally the media themselves that would be doing the protecting. In this case "media" is therefore clearly a metonym for a different concept, and is deployed as an uncountable noun.
        This is the usual usage now, as you know. It would be more correct to say that "media" was originally a plural noun, but is now rarely used as such.
        Reply |
    • 22 23
      After Kaur spoke out, Instagram restored her photo, but its claim of an “accidental removal” rings hollow.
      From the link in the ATL piece, which somewhat undermines the rest of it.
      Reply |
    • 76 77
      Social media is protecting men from periods, breast milk and body hair
      But I'm a man and I'm not on social media. Does that mean I'm getting more than my fair share of periods, breast milk and body hair? This hardly seems fair.
      Reply |
    • 33 34
      Great article. I would 100% be behind a social media campaign to get more images of women with body hair etc. out into the world, as, I have yet to see one, ever, on TV/adverts/films (unless it is to ridicule). However, I'd like to offer a small linguistic critique to the paragraph here: "it’s difficult to imagine women being offended by pictures of breastfeeding, unkempt bikini lines or period blood - that’s a standard Monday for a lot of us. It’s men that social media giants are “protecting” - men who have grown up on sanitized and sexualized images of female bodies. Men who have been taught to believe by pop culture, advertising and beyond that women’s bodies are there for them." - This is not strictly true, and could actually be harmful to the feminist cause. Women police women's bodies. Women are just as capable of being offended by period blood, hair and breastfeeding, (when it is another woman and not themselves) as men are capable. Similarly, I am (unbelievably I know!) lucky to know many men that are very happy and comfortable, even encouraging in conversation and actions, with all things periods, female body hair and breast feeding. While it is probably true-ish, to say men police these things predominantly, and woman are more accepting of diversions from the hairless, fertile, non-bleeding female, it is still an assumption and mass generalistation that can alienate people. I've struggled with this, but found recently in feminist discussion, I will point out it is FEMINism not womanism, because men can be feminine as much as women can be misogynists. While harmful gender norms are rooted in biological gender, they are not all-encompassing. So maybe some tweaking on the linguistics (pedantic I know, but people are very attached to their gender identity!), to show the reality that many women police other women's bodies, and many men are fully behind, appreciate and support liberated female bodies. While still acknowledging the huge and systemic problem that it is predominantly men that uphold patriarchy, and women that are most likely to challenge it. Great article, hope to see more, I cannot tell you how happy an advert, or image or something showing a hairy women framed/portrayed as being a confident, healthy, admirable and sexy women (not a ridiculed freak, i.e boots advert with a gorilla in a bikini) would make me!
      Reply |
      • 38 39
        As has been mentioned in a previous post there are plenty of "sites" showing naturally hirsute women. They are porn sites, which goes to show that it isn't the patriarchy which promotes the tyranny of the razor. How much body hair would you see in a woman's magazine?
        Reply |
      • 3 4
        I agree. I think women's natural bodis are treated with revulsion - breastfeeding compared to urinating and on these comments boards menstrual blood likened to abortions or ejaculation - but it's very unhelpful to word it the way it has been.
        This article did read like an attack on men and detracted from the good points to be made. Unfortunately some women have bought into this idea. It needs to be addressed, but not this way.
        Reply |
    • 68 69
      To be fair, I bet if a bloke took a picture of himself with his own semen smeared on him somewhere, they'd probably ban that too. Bodily fluids are gross. I can't really see this as a sexist issue. Sorry, but I don't want to see breastfeeding either.
      Reply |
    • 95 96
      I can't wait for the feminist outrage when an image of a fat guy with a shitty pants is taken down.
      Reply |
    • 91 92
      Some of us have had girlfriends. I've seen a bit of fat, plenty of bush, no milk yet. I've seen blood as well, not really into it, I don't even like rare steak, does that mean I'm part of the patriarchy? Once an ex was sick, she fainted while on the toilet. I had to clean her up like a baby. I didn't mind because at the time I loved her. Doesn't mean I want to see it on the internet.
      I feel under a lot of pressure these days to develop a six pack and wax my torso, damn matriarchy!
      Then I realised it's just adverts and music videos and that I live in reality.
      Reply |
    • This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
    • 23 24
      Hi, great article! Just a small, mainly linguistic critique:
      "it’s difficult to imagine women being offended by pictures of breastfeeding, unkempt bikini lines or period blood - that’s a standard Monday for a lot of us." - but a lot of women ARE offended.
      "It’s men that social media giants are “protecting” - men who have grown up on sanitized and sexualized images of female bodies. Men who have been taught to believe by pop culture, advertising and beyond that women’s bodies are there for them."" - It is also men that fight against these restrictions alongside women.
      As people are very attached and defensive regarding gender identity, it may be harmful to state 'men' this, and 'women' that, as if it is all encompassing, even if it is probably very accurate in describing a generalisation. Women are just as capable of misogyny and prevalent in policing other women's bodies, as men are capable of challenging patriarchy and fighting against misogyny and sexism alongside women.
      Recently in discussion I have found it is much more engaging to point out that Feminism is the protection of femininity, be it men or women expressing it. It allows men and women to join in the fight for gender equality, while making sure women are not somehow magically immune to being challenged on their own misogynistic/sexist behavior.
      A really great read - please can someone start some kind of 'hairy women yay' social media campaign??!
      Reply |
    • 80 81
      This further confirms my belief that Jessica trawls instagram, twitter and tumblr for the majority of her 'articles'.
      One more faux outrage piece to further taint the feminist cause. Congratulations.
      Reply |
    • 6 7
      Sexy images are appropriate, but images of women’s bodies doing normal women body things are not.
      I assume, partly from her previous ouevre, that the author would like this situation to be reversed. That is sexy images should be outlawed, but images of 'normal women body things' are OK. If it is acceptable to create the latter, why not the former? Is the test to be one of authenticity, on the assumption that sexy images must have been doctored to make them that way?
      Also, I can thing of a few 'human body things' that are normal, but that I wouldn't want to see an image of.
      Reply |
      • 12 13
        The reversal would be to make it OK to have images of "unsexy" women with body hair, periods and breast feeding. Not the banning of "sexy" images.
        Are there any 'human body things' that are restricted to men that are not allowed to be shown? For example, if male ejaculation was banned from pornography, I would be up in arms just as much as I am for the actual, very real, illegality of female ejaculation on UK porn. The point of the article was to point out the double standard that in general (not all-encompassing) men are allowed to be hairy, to bleed, to come, to sweat and have nipples for all to see and every one accepts this is just how men are. However this is not true for currently for media images of women. Or, for another example, let's take the ridiculous and growing extreme media standard for men to be extremely muscular, increasingly hairless, groomed and tanned. If social media banned all images of men that did not meet this ideal, while allowing pale, fat, hairy, un-kept women to exist online, that would be a double standard based on nothing but gender also. As I don't want these diverse (but worryingly falling in number) images of men to be banned from social media, it is fair to ask that these images of woman are not banned also.
        Reply |
      • 20 21
        Actually, the Guardian in general seems to take the view that sexy images of women are sexist and therefore bad (re the criticism of some British tabloid for featuring topless pics of models on page 3) but that any discretion re showing, say, pubic hair is sexist censorship.
        A puzzling ideology.
        Reply |
    • 8 9
      There is a creeping disgust among many people (male and female) for natural female bodily happenings like bleeding, breastfeeding and body hair. This disgust is not so present about the sexualised images of female bodies. This imbalance can lead prepubescent people to think that this is a normal representation of women. It also sets up unrealistic expectations and encourages some women to strive to achieve sterile and cleansed sexual availability at all times.
      Reply |
    • 62 63
      Because, truly, it’s difficult to imagine women being offended by pictures of breastfeeding, unkempt bikini lines or period blood
      If this is remotely true, Valenti must mix with a very narrow circle of women.
      Reply |
      • 30 31
        Yeah, I find it difficult to imagine women all being completely down with swapping pictures of each others tampons and stuff. Are women really that cool with each other's secretions? I know that if some dude shared a pic of his cumstained pyjamas on my timeline I'd probably report it, defriend him, and try to never, ever think about him again.
        Reply |
      • 11 12
        Nah it is bollocks, in fact I'm pretty sure men are less bothered than women by some of these. Valenti is famous for rhetorical flourishes untethered from reality.
        Reply |
    1 2 3 4 12 next
    SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center for more information.
    SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center for more information.
    desktop
    0%
    10%
    20%
    30%
    40%
    50%
    60%
    70%
    80%
    90%
    100%