Heika’s Letter to the Editor

August 2, 2010 by Ian
Filed under: Civil Disobedience, Noncooperation, Response, Update

Heika Heika‘s letter to the editor was published in the Union Leader yesterday, but they apparently don’t put those on their website, so Heika kindly sent Free Keene a copy:

First things first: Baring one’s breasts in public is not a crime, nor is it illegal. That said, I also want to make clear that, contrary to what your article of July 19 implied, there were not several of us parading around downtown, taking off our clothes. A very talented local artist and I decided it would be beautiful to have my breasts painted. He was very respectful of not touching my body in any way except on a professional level. We were sitting on a park bench, covering what was not being painted.

I was officially—and wrongfully—arrested for holding an open container of alcohol in a public place. For the record, I was not intoxicated. Part of the reason people gather daily on the common in downtown Keene is to peacefully protest this ludicrous law. Some drink, while others socialize. Many people feel we are not properly going about achieving our goal to see changes in personal freedoms (such as drinking a beer on a property that we are required to pay for), but at least we are trying. Writing the government to ask them to change the law simply doesn’t work.

We are very peaceful in our gatherings. We leave the park cleaner than the way we found it, we don’t scream belligerently at cars or people passing through, and we do not threaten or harm anyone in any way. That sort of behavior is frequently seen on the patios of downtown restaurants and bars, yet the police do nothing about that. Why are we the ones being singled out and crucified?

The answer is simple: People are scared of change. Creatures of habit we may be, but like it or not, there will be change. Eventually we will truly be allowed to “Live Free Or Die,” as New Hampshire’s motto reads. I am proud to be a resident of a state with such a proud slogan. I do not need brutal police officers to tell me when and where I can relax and have a beer. I have a job, I pay taxes, and I am an adult–an adult with a very capable mind, and no intent of harming another being.

If the government can dictate what kind of beverage I can hold while sitting on a bench that I have in part paid for, then where does it end? Will they soon be telling me I can’t walk barefoot in my own back yard? Or will they be telling me what time I must be in bed? I am no longer a helpless child to be subject to such restrictions. As a grown woman, I do not require rules concerning my body and property, which I am capable of maintaining and paying for.

I have heard many people ask us to stop our protest, that we are wasting too much of the taxpayers’ money. My response to that is: Stop making rules that hinder my right to choose and be free. If that would happen, we would have fewer arrests, lower court fees, and less jail time, and more money for worthy causes and concerns.

I was cited yet again this week for holding an open container of alcohol, and I will continue to do so until we see results. Results that allow us to make decisions for ourselves. As time goes on, more and more people join us in our peaceful protest of this law. Many people are not activists, but agree that this law is unjust. We invite anyone that agrees with this to join us at the park! All are welcome.

Gabe

Which I just addressed, again, for your benefit. Your claims regarding lactation are utterly without merit.

Udderly? I hope that was an attempt at humor.

“If I created an identical replica of your automobile, only 1/10th the size, could you still derive the same utility from it that you do from your current vehicle? What about your house? Your clothing?”

Oh, so it’s going to be size-based? Anyone (men-included) with a cup size over ____ shall not go topless, and anyone with a cup size below that, is free to?

If you'll notice, I was quoting something you wrote, and responding to that. For your benefit, I will quote it again. In Comment #36, you wrote: "The structures are identical. They vary only in size." My response (in quotations in your post) was in response to that.
MaineShark

That was a post bereft of content, if there ever was one.

I'm guessing you're totally failing to find meaningful biological differences upon which to base your theory that discrimination against women's breasts isn't actually sexist?
Gabe

Okay, let's recap, shall we?

You claim that mens' and womens' breasts are "biologically-identical".

I counter that while they may be sociologically identical, there are in fact biological differences.

You respond by pointing out a very specific way in which you claim they are similar, under the influence of "hormonal balance changes".

I cite well-known and well-studied science ("rare cases of hyperprolactinemia, inhibition of dopamine in the tuberoinfundibular pathway, or intake of large amounts of a galactagogue") to point out that the biological similarity is not as close as you claim.

Your response merely waves generalities around and attacks a straw man ("Anyone who knows basic biology should know that male and female breasts are the same. Anyone who knows something beyond the basics, should have no doubt of that. The structures are identical. They vary only in size.").

Given this, I ask about your background and experience, since your comment implies you have quite a bit of knowledge when it comes to biology.

Rather than mention specifics, you mock my attempt to involve actual real science in the discussion ("I “scientifically” came to that conclusion, based upon the fact that the structures are identical"). Then, you challenge me to point out the differences ("If you know of some biological differences, by all means do share.") even though I had already done so.

After I mention that I already pointed out differences, you again attack a straw man, completely ignoring any of the cogent points I previously made. When I point out that you yourself highlighted a difference in size, you take this to mean that *I* am the one claiming a difference in size matters, when in reality I was quoting something you yourself wrote.

I try to politely clarify that I was quoting your words, not my own. Your response? "That was a post bereft of content, if there ever was one."

So, I'm left to draw one of two conclusions. Either you're essentially incapable of following a discussion. Or you really don't have any actual support for your point of view, and are left to throw proverbial stones at me and to try to discredit me somehow. At this point, unless you are going to attempt to move the conversation forward, I really don't have much else to say. I've made several attempts to point out specific ways in which they are biologically different, while still maintaining the notion that they can be sociologically identical. Each time, you've either ignored the points I made, misconstrued your own words as mine, or lobbed insults at me.

I’m guessing you’re totally failing to find meaningful biological differences upon which to base your theory that discrimination against women’s breasts isn’t actually sexist?

Again, just to be perfectly clear. At no point did I advocate for discrimination against womens' breasts, or any other sexist action. In fact, to the contrary, I went out of my way to acknowledge the viability of sociological equality between them. I have been pointing out that sociological identity is not the same as biological identity.

It sounds like this concept may be to subtle for you to grasp.
MaineShark

You know, I could fisk your post, but there's really no point.

Your premise is based upon /me/ bringing lactation into the discussion. Which is false. /You/ brought that up, in reply #32. Your very /first/ reply to me.

I refuted your claim, and you have since failed to bring up any /actual/ biological difference, so your claim stands utterly in shambles.
Gabe

Please explain how my premise is based upon lactation.

And even if it is, does that not constitute a biological difference?

Also, please explain how you refuted my claims that I made in Comment #34. Your reply consisted of: "Anyone who knows basic biology should know that male and female breasts are the same. Anyone who knows something beyond the basics, should have no doubt of that. The structures are identical. They vary only in size."

That's not a refutation. That's just insulting the person with whom you're having a discussion, while introducing your own estimation of the differences.

Please, go ahead and fisk. I was merely summarizing our discussion to date, since your latest comment implied you had forgotten all of it.
bil

This is really getting crazy. Anyone walking down the streef can see that there is (generally) a differance between mens breasts and womens breasts. How you look at them and what you feel about them is where a differance comes in. In this society, a womans breasts have become sexualised ,to a degree not seen in most of history. At many times in history, the clothes were made to practically display womens breasts,at other times they were flattened so as to deny their existance. But to declare that if a person sees a differance is being sexist, I think that stretches political correctness a bit too far. —bil
MaineShark

"Please explain how my premise is based upon lactation."

That's the only supposed difference you've given.

"And even if it is, does that not constitute a biological difference?"

Again, no. Some men lactate. Many women do not lactate. Lactation constitutes a biological difference between "lactating" and "non-lactating" breasts, but does not constitute a biological difference between male and female breasts.

Male and female breasts are structurally identical. Let's repeat again: male and female breasts are structurally identical. Any claim to the contrary shows a complete lack of understanding of biology (as easily seen by the total and complete inability of those supporting that claim to come up with any actual differences).
Gabe

In Comment #36, YOU wrote the following:

Anyone who knows basic biology should know that male and female breasts are the same. Anyone who knows something beyond the basics, should have no doubt of that. The structures are identical. They vary only in size.

(emphasis added by me)

So, I pose the question to you again. Does size not constitute a difference to you? If not, then why did you write it?

You might say that some men have larger breasts than some women, while some women have smaller breasts than some men.

If that is your argument, then let me further specify the question. What if there was a statistically significant difference in the mean sizes?
MaineShark

Size is not a structural difference.

Men average taller than women. Women average larger breasts.

These are not structural differences. Arguing that women's breasts are different from men's breasts because of average size differences would be like arguing that men's spines and women's spines are different, just because the average man is taller than the average women.

The structures are identical. Unless you're going to institute a cup-size-based standard for exposing breasts, and apply it equally, such that large-breasted men are criticized for going topless and small-breasted women are not, saying that women should not go topless is a sexist position.

Since we know that Paul is explicitly stating that women should (regardless of breast size) not go topless, and since there is no structural difference between male and female breasts, his assertion that women should not go topless is an explicitly-sexist position to take. And your claim that is is /not/ sexist is illogical.
Gabe

Size is not a structural difference.
Men average taller than women. Women average larger breasts.
These are not structural differences. Arguing that women’s breasts are different from men’s breasts because of average size differences would be like arguing that men’s spines and women’s spines are different, just because the average man is taller than the average women.

Shall I re-state the examples I gave previously, or can I just refer you to Comment #48? You know, it's getting real tiring having to restate every point I make several times.

Either way, if size does not constitute a difference, then why did you choose to mention it?

The structures are identical. Unless you’re going to institute a cup-size-based standard for exposing breasts, and apply it equally, such that large-breasted men are criticized for going topless and small-breasted women are not, saying that women should not go topless is a sexist position.

So now you claim the only way to discern a difference is through some artificial categorical measurement, discretized by "cup size". I didn't know that was one of your rules. Are there any other rules of determining sexism that I should know about?

Since we know that Paul is explicitly stating that women should (regardless of breast size) not go topless, and since there is no structural difference between male and female breasts, his assertion that women should not go topless is an explicitly-sexist position to take. And your claim that is is /not/ sexist is illogical.

Please point out, using Comment # or otherwise, where I made any claim on whether or not it was sexist. Furthermore, please point out where I made any sexist remark myself about what should and should not be allowed in public.

This entire time, I have been stating that while some people may or may not believe in sociological identity between male and female breasts, they are not biologically identical. For you to take this and somehow misconstrue it to mean something sexist is bizarre. Frankly, I think you owe me an apology.

When Darwin wrote about the finches he discovered on the Galapagos, he noted biological (and evolutionary) differences in their bills, beaks, flight patterns, and song patterns. There were differences between the birds from different islands, which had evolved over time in order to maximize their ability to obtain food from the native sources. They had adapted and evolved based on necessity.

In much the same way, biological differences exist between male and female humans. That is a fact. The difference in size is a by-product of this, but really is missing the point. If you don't believe in any biological difference in breasts, I suppose next you're going to tell me there's no difference between the multi-colored plumage of a male peacock, versus the dull brown plumage of a female peacock. Or no difference between male and female reproductive organs either. Or cloven hooves found on pigs, deer and sheep, versus odd-toed ungulates such as horses and rhinoceroses

Sexual dimorphism is real. It exists. Granted, humans are less dimorphic than most other primates. But for you to deny it exists is honestly just perplexing.
MaineShark

"You know, it’s getting real tiring having to restate every point I make several times."

You should stop doing it, then. Re-stating false things doesn't magically make them true. When your statements are refuted, the honest thing to do is concede that point, and find something new to say.

"Either way, if size does not constitute a difference, then why did you choose to mention it?"

I didn't say it's not a difference. I said it's not a structural difference. Kindly be honest, eh?

"Please point out, using Comment # or otherwise, where I made any claim on whether or not it was sexist."

#32. Or was your point not to defend Paul's sexism, but merely to argue for the sake of arguing?

"This entire time, I have been stating that while some people may or may not believe in sociological identity between male and female breasts, they are not biologically identical."

Which, no matter how many times you repeat it, is a false statement. Your inability to name an /actual/ structural difference tells the story.

"If you don’t believe in any biological difference in breasts, I suppose next you’re going to tell me there’s no difference between the multi-colored plumage of a male peacock, versus the dull brown plumage of a female peacock. Or no difference between male and female reproductive organs either."

That's puerile. Male and female reproductive organs are actually, anatomically different. Breasts are not. Male and female breasts are no more different than male and female hands, or male and female eyes.

Your posts show a total lack of understanding of anatomy and logic. Not to mention an utter disregard for honesty.

Male breasts consist of fatty tissue, ligaments, mammary glands, milk ducts, and nipples. Female breasts consist of fatty tissue, ligaments, mammary glands, milk ducts, and nipples. If you can't list some actual difference in the structure, don't expect a reply.
Gabe

"#32. Or was your point not to defend Paul’s sexism, but merely to argue for the sake of arguing?"
The point was trying to help you with a friendly suggestion. Because I believe in this movement. So when you make a claim that is patently false, it makes you sounds like a damn fool. And spreading that misinformation will only harm us in the long run.

"Which, no matter how many times you repeat it, is a false statement. Your inability to name an /actual/ structural difference tells the story."
I didn't say it's a structural difference. You keep mentioning structural differences. I keep saying it's a biological difference. Kindly be honest, eh?

"That’s puerile. Male and female reproductive organs are actually, anatomically different. Breasts are not. Male and female breasts are no more different than male and female hands, or male and female eyes."
Please explain how it's childish. In other words, what makes male and female reproductive organs different, in your mind? They both consist of fatty tissue, ligaments, and genetic material, among other things.

Perhaps I'm wrong here and you're correct, but repeatedly demeaning me won't help to convince me. If you can provide thorough, fact-based evidence, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, all you're doing is slinging insults, calling me a fool, and telling me I'm bereft of knowledge. That doesn't seem very intellectually honest to me.

"Your posts show a total lack of understanding of anatomy and logic. Not to mention an utter disregard for honesty."
Which part? The part where I discussed sexual dimorphism? Was that devoid of an understanding of anatomy? Or the part where I cited inhibition of dopamine in the tuberoinfundibular pathway, or intake of large amounts of a galactagogue, as two possible reasons for male lactation? Logically, those lead to male lactation.
MaineShark

"The point was trying to help you with a friendly suggestion. Because I believe in this movement. So when you make a claim that is patently false, it makes you sounds like a damn fool. And spreading that misinformation will only harm us in the long run."

The minor problem being, of course, that yours is the false claim. "Helpfully" injecting falsehoods isn't very helpful.

"I didn’t say it’s a structural difference. You keep mentioning structural differences. I keep saying it’s a biological difference. Kindly be honest, eh?"

Since we're not doing genetic testing on-the-spot to determine who's allowed to do what, the only biological differences that are relevant to this discussions are ones that create structural changes.

"Please explain how it’s childish. In other words, what makes male and female reproductive organs different, in your mind? They both consist of fatty tissue, ligaments, and genetic material, among other things."

And we're all carbon-based.

Let me know when a testicle forms a cyst and releases an egg. Males don't have vaginas. Females don't have penises. Different positioning of the urethra and its outlet. Dramatically different shape of the erectile tissues. Et cetera.

See, those are structural differences. You can look at the organs and tell that they are different.

If you removed the breasts of a small-breasted female, and those of a large-breasted male, you could not create a similar list of differences.

But feel free to try. You know, to argue based upon /facts/. As I keep challenging you to do, list any actual differences. How would you tell the breasts in that example from each other. They're sitting on a platter, removed from cadavers. List what differences you will use to determine which pair belongs to the female, and which to the male.

"Which part? The part where I discussed sexual dimorphism? Was that devoid of an understanding of anatomy? Or the part where I cited inhibition of dopamine in the tuberoinfundibular pathway, or intake of large amounts of a galactagogue, as two possible reasons for male lactation? Logically, those lead to male lactation."

You do realize that your ability to look something up on Wikipedia doesn't make you knowledgeable? It's amusing that nothing you've listed isn't linked right there…
Gabe

Fine, I give up. There is no such thing as sexual dimorphism. Galactagogues don't exist. There are no biological differences between men and women. Everything you write is truth, and should be accepted as such, without any evidence or presentation of fact.
bil

This is all Pauls fault. Sexist bastard. Imagine, while he isn't against women being topless ,he prefers not to see them in public .He isn't against it, just doesn't prefer to see it. Although if he actually prefered to see topless women in public, wouldn't that also make him a sexist?? And to think I actually had coffee with him!! I feel so dirty!! And he seemed so nice,too. Him and his personal preferances. —bil
MaineShark

@Gabe: You know, I should thank you. The complete disregard for the truth you just demonstrated really put the final nail in this argument.

@Bil: Yeah, just like if he wasn't against Jews, he just didn't want to see them in public, he wouldn't be a racist? Of if he wasn't against gays, he just didn't want to see them in public, he wouldn't be a homophobe?
bil

Actually,not at all. It would be like if he didn't want to see women out in public at all,or maybe with a chador on. That would be sexist. Whether or not he or anyone else cares to see women topless is their personal choice. As long as he doesn't try to stop someone else doing it. I don't see where he advocates that. If he prefers to see his wife topless at home, is he sexist? If I go to a titty bar, am I sexist? What if I am just thirsty and just want a drink, not to watch the show? If someone has differant standards that they live by that are not your own, does that mean they are sexist, racist ,statist, or any other 'ist' you can think of? You yourself have mentioned a fondness for being armed. Are you a militarist?

Not wanting to see something and not wanting it to exist are two seperate things. —bil
Paul

Thanks bil, but it's alright, I'm comfortable with MaineShark's disapproval . And he really, really likes to argue about things endlessly, so I wouldn't spend a lot of time on this unless you want to.
MaineShark

So someone who doesn't want to see two men holding hands, even though he's fine seeing a man and a woman holding hands, isn't homophobic?

Sorry, no.

He wants to apply different standards to men and women. That makes him sexist. If he didn't want anyone to ever be topless in public, that would be different.

"Isms" are about personal standards, not necessarily about enforcing anything. If someone believes that "Jews will cheat you in business dealings," but never advocates any law to keep Jews out of business, he's still a racist, due precisely to what he believes.

And yes, if someone believes that there should be a government that controls others by force, whether they consented to participation or not, is /automatically/ a statist.

This post brought to you by "words mean things."
MaineShark

Forgot to answer your question about being armed:

I'm not a "militarist," because that would have something to do with being in the military. "Hoplophile" might work.

I have stated on numerous occasions that I find folks walking around unarmed (naked, no matter how many layers of clothing they wear) to be lewd, and a bit disturbing. That's part of who I am, and I make no apologies for it.

If I know that someone is a responsible member of armed society, I will give him or her preferential treatment. If I know someone is unarmed for some fairly-legitimate reason, I'll not be offended. If I know someone chooses to be unarmed, but also expressly does not want me to defend him, I'll think him a bit odd, but also put him in that neutral category. If I know someone would like to be defended, but refuses to take part in his own defense, I'll definitely discriminate against him to varying degrees.

I also don't tell folks that it's their fault that I feel this way. I choose to be the sort of person who feels offended by the unarmed, and I own that choice. I don't go around accusing those who choose to be unarmed of "making" me feel that way. I don't tell others that they are behaving wrongfully, because they don't cater to my personal preferences.
bil

Glad to see you have gotten a sponsor!

Actually,wouldn't any discrimination against Jews be classified as anti-Semitic, rather than racist? I don't recall any mention to an aversion to seeing two men holding hands. As for myself,I don't have a problem with anyone going around topless,unless maybe Rich Paul. (watch the video)

It is nice to know that I am up for some preferential treatment from you,as I am always well armed,unless the situation calls for a temporary disarming. (banks,courthouses,the shower). I would also agree with your values as to others and their personal degrees of defense. I am perfectly capable of defending myself, my family,and those in need. Not so much those that refuse to prepare, then want my help when the shit hits the fan. Is hoploism a word?? Hoploist sounds better than hoplophile. —bil
MaineShark

Antisemitism is a specific sort of racism (like "white supremacy") which relates to Semitic peoples (which includes Arabs).

Paul's complaints are equivalent to someone saying, "I have no problem with gays, I just don't want to see them holding hands or kissing in public," and then trying to claim that he's not homophobic.
bil

I see what you mean,Paul. I am out on this one,too. However,I will stick to my guns on guns. —bil
MaineShark

Yup, that's what I thought.

Reason always triumphs, in the end. Which is why liberty will eventually win: it's the only reason-based philosophy out there.
bil

Reason has nothing to do with it-I am just sick of the same stuff over and over. —bil
Gabe

Antisemitism is a specific sort of racism (like “white supremacy”) which relates to Semitic peoples (which includes Arabs).

You're a fucking idiot, and this just proves it once and for all. Whether or not you want to break down the commonly-accepted term "Antisemitism" into its root words, the well-known meaning of the term refers specifically to Jews. For you to group all Jews into a race shows that you have no clue what you're writing about.

Anyone who knows basic anthropology should know that all Jews are not of the same race. Anyone who knows something beyond the basics should have no doubt of that. Your statement is not based upon any reason or facts at all — just your own prejudices. Your claims are completely without merit.

And even if you want to pretend this commonly-accepted definition doesn't exist, and that it somehow refers only in the general sense to "Semitic" people (which includes Arabs), all Semitic people are not of the same race either.
bil

Q.E.D. 'nuff said! —bil
MaineShark

Now that's just funny.

There's no real referent for "race." Jews are the same "race" because "race" is a social construct, and has precious little to do with genes.

The psychos who machine-gunned my ancestors in ditches sure didn't give a hoot about genes, given that their genes came from Europe.
Gabe

That was a post bereft of content, if there ever was one.

You used the term "racism" ("Antisemitism is a specific sort of racism…"). If, in your opinion, no real referent for “race” exists, then how can the notion of racism exist?

I’m guessing you’re totally failing to find meaningful explanation for your previous comments, since your last post does nothing to explain them at all.
MaineShark

Race is a social construct.

That doesn't mean racists cannot act in certain ways as a result of it.

Someone who is delusional might see demons and act as a result. Doesn't mean the demons exist.

If you actually understood anything that was being discussed here, rather than just being a Wikipedia genius, that would have been blatantly clear.