We set off a bit of controversy with our November 27 cover,
a collage that included a woman’s bare breasts. Some readers called or wrote to
complain. Some newsstands refused to distribute that issue of our newspaper.
And here at City,we had a rousing staff debate about the cover.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย One
reader called the cover “bawdy,” but the collage was not designed to be
titillating. For all of our 31 years, we have been a champion of women’s rights
and have written frequently about such issues as women’s equality and the
media’s exploitation of women.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Our
cover story was about breasts and feminine identity. In it, women discussed the
impact breasts have on their lives, from childhood on, and, as writer Jennifer
Loviglio put it, “how they feel about their breasts as time passes and their
bodies change.”
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย The
teasing of boys during adolescence, the pressure to have a perfect figure, the
emotions associated with breastfeeding, the horror of breast cancer: The lives
of girls and women are uniquely and profoundly tied to their breasts.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย And
however often we say that women’s bodies ought not to be exploited, however
strongly we insist that breastfeeding is natural and beautiful (not to mention
good for the baby), much of the public considers breasts to be anything but
“normal.” And so I was not surprised at the reaction to our cover.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Our
editorial staff, however, felt that the artwork for Loviglio’s story was both
appropriate and necessary. There could be only one reason that we wouldn’t run
a picture of bare breasts with an article on that subject: that we didn’t want
to offend anyone. And we do not believe that breasts are offensive.
We do know that this is a sensitive topic. Our
culture drums it into us that breasts are primarily sex objects. Proper girls
and women cover themselves in public.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย We
also understand that we publish this newspaper in a conservative county in a
conservative region of the state. Our November 27 cover would raise fewer
eyebrows in San Francisco.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย There
is, though, a certain amount of hypocrisy here. Some of the Wegmans stores
refused to carry that issue of City. The same week, however, you could
buy a variety of sexually suggestive material at Wegmans: Testosterone magazine, for instance, showing a woman from the back and below, legs spread,
buttocks mostly bare. Complete Woman, whose coverpromoted an
article titled “XXX-rated Guide to his Body.” A birthday card showing a man in
a bikini and the cover greeting: “It’s gonna be long and it’s gonna be hard.”
And our staff’s favorite, Interview magazine, with a blatantly sexily
posed Brittany Murphy astride a rocking horse.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Readers
offended by our cover, suggested cover artist Christian Schimke, “should drag
their kids around Wegmans blindfolded and should not let them watch TV.”
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Still,
there are the questions: Why do so many people consider breasts embarrassing or
offensive? What does it say about us when publishing a picture of bare breasts
sends shock waves through some parts of the community? How does the public’s
negative perception of breasts affect women and young girls?
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย (What,
I wonder, would the reaction would have been had our cover illustration shown a
woman breastfeeding her baby? Would a grocery store, a cafe, or a YMCA branch
have refused to carry the newspaper? Would decision-makers at those places have
wrestled with the decision? If some patrons complained, would those
establishments have yanked the issue?)
Some readers were upset by the design of the collage:
“Is that the way you view women, as grotesque?”
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Editorial
assistant Rachel Chaffee, one of the younger women on our staff, gives this
response: “The cover image is one that is both grotesque and beautiful in its
form. It is the way in which body parts are combined that speaks to Jennifer’s
article; the image challenges the viewer to determine the way in which they
objectify women’s bodies in their own minds as well as their own issues of
insecurity and self-esteem.”
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย “The
collage,” says Chaffee, “constructs a woman who is fascinatingly fierce and
beautiful because she is not flawless.”
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Loviglio’s
article and the public reaction, says Chaffee, underscores the need to “examine
the reasons why people are uncomfortable, so much so that they cannot even
allow themselves to read the story.” And, she adds: “It is this type of
‘uncomfortable’ art that opens the doors to dialogue.”
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย The
approach to Loviglio’s story, our editors agree, is challenging. Challenging
the public is one of our roles. And while we did not set out deliberately to
upset readers, we don’t think we can bow to public prejudices in order to keep
from offending people.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย We do
welcome — and respect — your comments. (Send them to
themail@rochester-citynews.com or The Mail, City Newspaper, 250 North
Goodman Street, Rochester 14607. Please indicate whether we have your
permission to publish your letter, and include your name and address.)
This article appears in Dec 11-17, 2002.
