Women have a long and admirable history of doing battle with their breasts.
In 783 CE, Saxon women, including noblewoman Fastrada,
famously hurled themselves bare-breasted into battle against Charlemagne's forces. Fastrada later became Charlemagne's third wife and Queen of the Franks.
In the Greenland saga, Viking woman Freydís Eiríksdóttir, half sister to Leif Erikson and eight months pregnant at the time,
is said
to have bared her breast and, striking it with her sword, let out a
"furious cry" in an attempt to frighten off a group of attacking Native
Americans. It worked.
Lady Godiva supposedly
convinced her husband to lower the taxes of the medieval residents of Coventry by riding through the streets naked.
Marianne, the revered French symbol for liberty,
is depicted bare-breasted in the famous painting by Eugène Delacroix,
hoisting the Tricolour in one hand, a bayonet in the other, as she leads
the people over bodies of the fallen.
Perhaps it is not
entirely a surprise, then, that New York City mayor Bill de Blasio is so
determined to remove topless panhandlers from Times Square: History
(and myth) clearly tells us topless women are dangerous. Naked breasts
are simply unregistered weapons that at any moment can be unholstered
and directed at innocent passersby. In this case, the hordes of tourists
mobbing NYC's streets.
Or you'd
be forgiven for thinking so based on the wildly over-the-top reaction
of NYC politicians when confronted with naked nipples.
Some quick backstory in case you missed it:
Among
the many panhandlers and street performers jockeying for tourist money
in Times Square are a handful of enterprising topless women—they call
themselves
desnudas,
the Spanish word for "naked"—who are painting their (legally) bared
breasts a patriotic red, white, and blue and offering to pose with
tourists for cash. Last week, during the doggiest days of summer, the
New York Daily News (full disclosure: I write for the
NYDN
from time to time) did what tabloids do when the well is running
dry, and took an old, innocuous story—these women have been doing this
for years now—and went on a
four-day rampage. (This par for the course where NYC tabloids are concerned: Last month the
New York Post beat a
similar editorial warpath about a homeless man who was caught urinating in public.)
Mayor de Blasio, who presumably does have things to do in August, took note and rushed together a
blue-ribbon committee
to deal with this plague of terrifying topless women, going so far as
to threaten to turn Times Square from a pedestrian plaza back into a
thoroughfare for cars.
Over the weekend, the
New York Times published a wonderfully scathing
op-ed
blasting the mayor for his overreaction and noting that "being
shirtless in the city is perfectly legal, a privilege men have enjoyed
since forever. ... Times Square is not going to hell, or anywhere near
hell's vicinity." On Sunday, dozens of topless women
marched in support.
(The last time an NYC mayor got this up in arms about a bare breast was
1999, when then Mayor Giuliani was handed an article by, you guessed
it, the
NYDN about a Chris Ofili painting exhibited in the Brooklyn Museum that
depicts
the Virgin Mary with a bare breast made from elephant dung; Giuliani
wasted no time in cutting the museum's $7 million in public funding, a
decision that was later overturned in court.)
In a country where
we seem unable to enact any sort of meaningful gun laws, despite
continually witnessing terrible proof of their necessity, how is it that
the simple appearance of bare breasts can inspire a response that one
imagines should be reserved for actual weapons?
Perhaps the truth
is men view breasts as a weapon of sorts—at least insofar as they
signify a woman's power over her own body. Culturally, there has long
been a determination to keep them holstered in one way or another, from
dress codes to topless prohibitions on beaches. It's worth noting among
all the joking over political overreaction that de Blasio is not alone
in his fear of the nipple. Even some of the more progressive companies
in America take care not to offend when it comes to this region of a
woman's body: Facebook and Instagram have long supported a contentious
policy of
banning
women's nipples from their images. Reportedly, more than 200,000
viewers complained the FCC after Janet Jackson's infamous "wardrobe
malfunction" during the 2004 Super Bowl; later Viacom agreed to pay
$3.5 million to the FCC in fines.
It seems we are fine with breasts as long as they are constricted,
contained, and nicely covered up―or at least, on display only in a
manner that is pleasing and related to sex.
It seems we are fine with breasts as long as they are
constricted, contained, and nicely covered up―or at least, on display
only in a manner that is pleasing and related to sex. Even a cursory
glance around the many billboards of Times Square reveals no shortage of
breasts in the line of sight of these tourists the mayor is so
concerned about. But those breasts are sexualized in a way that
makes men feel comfortable.
As any woman who's had to deal with sideways glances when she breastfed in public
can tell you,
we are, as a society, a great deal less comfortable with breasts when
they are performing functional, nonsexualized duties. We are even more
disturbed when they don't belong to young women and/or don't appear
round and full. (Maybe only Victoria's Secret models have the right to
take their tops off?) Women are guilty of this thinking, too, and it's
no surprise when you consider that for most of our lives, the only
images we see in films, magazines, and on television depict a certain
ideal.
What is the solution? As movements like
Free the Nipple
suggest, a generation of younger women is increasingly fed up with
being bound up. Our bodies have functions beyond those geared toward
sexual pleasure, and it's time they're recognized as such.
But where
men's eyes (and desires) go, so does government policy. If we are in
fact waging a war over our breasts, with our breasts, perhaps it doesn't
hurt to have a few more ladies' nipples in the arsenal