Monday, November 28, 2011

Baby in the looking glass

This post on Women’s Web and a comment that linked to this article got me thinking about the sexual politics of Facebook profile pictures.

The Women’s Web post is about women using their husband’s Facebook accounts instead of their own* and the article linked to in the comment is about women using photographs of their children as their Facebook profile photo.

I have always found the idea of using my child’s photograph as my profile picture fairly nauseating. It seemed to me to quite clearly declare that my child had taken over my identity. For the same reason, although I’m married, I’ve never have had a Facebook photo with my husband. I wanted my Facebook identity to be just me. V never used a picture of both of us as his profile photo either – he has used the same one of himself since the beginning.

But when I began looking through my earlier profile photos, I realised I did once have a baby replacing my image as the profile photo. That was when my sister’s baby was born. I was so overcome with emotion that day, I think the birth of that child was the biggest thing that had ever happened to me in my life. I’ve never had my own child up as my Facebook photo, though, ironically. But since Benji was born, almost all my profile photos have been with him with the exception of one, in which I’m with my niece.

What’s in a Facebook photo anyway? Well, it’s now generally accepted that Facebook is where we not only interact socially online but also where we project a certain image of ourselves. What we put up on Facebook – photos, status messages, links, wall posts – are a specially curated image of ourselves, what’s we’d like other people to think we are and possibly what we end up believing we are in some cases. Hence, often when people take a photo of you these days and it turns out nicely they go “oh Facebook photo”. Generally, this is a particular kind of image – one in which one looks good, of course, but also one in which one looks like one is having fun, part of the vibrant, hip, fun Facebook world. Hence, a lot of people’s Facebook photos (apart from the nostalgic/horrendous days-gone-by ones) are of them out and about, doing interesting stuff, partying etc.

So what do my Facebook profile photos say about me? Clearly that since my child was born, he’s a big part of my life. He occupies at least half of a space (the profile picture box) that was earlier devoted to exclusively me. This might reflect that he has taken over half my life.

And what do the profile photos of women who use their baby’s image instead of their own say about them? That their baby has taken over their entire life maybe. That they equate their whole identity with that of their child, just like it seems like I equate at least half of my identity with that of my child.

This seems to turn off a lot of people, and I admit I was one of them. But when I think about it – so what? So what if at this point in my life, I have allowed my child to take over half of my life? It is a fact that right now I am half mother and half everything-else. And I am happy this way. The thing that gives me a great deal of joy is my son just as that summer my niece captivated me and one year a reunion at a friends wedding in Goa inspired a whole group of us to post a very similar image of our group of girlies partying it up.

There are many people whose Facebook photos almost entirely consist of images of them living it up, partying etc. Somehow this doesn’t seem to elicit much comment. It is kind of understood that these are the kind of photos to be posted on Facebook. What conclusions might one draw about these people? That their lives are exclusively dedicated to partying? Why is that more palatable than a woman whose life seems to be dedicated to her child?

In a similar vein, why the lamentation about women who talk only about their children? Again, I’m one of those that was and is probably still bored by too much talk about children. I am careful not to do this myself. But a lot of people drone on about a lot of other things – how much they drank last night, for example. This doesn’t seem to draw the same amount of aversion.

Maybe because the feminist in us balks at the idea of women going back to those days when their lives had to be dedicated to their children. But I think we’ve come far along enough since then to not panic anymore.

First, not every woman is replacing their self-image with that of their babies. So if some women are doing it, just as some seem to exclusively post images of themselves drunk or in bikinis, that’s okay, right?

Just because a woman seems to be saying her identity has fused with that of her child, now, doesn’t mean it will be so for all eternity. It may be a phase they are going through – generally in new motherhood – and maybe five or 10 years down the line, they’ll begin posting the drunken photos that seem so much in demand again or something else entirely.

Moreover, the Facebook image is a selective one. I don’t believe that those people who exclusively post images of themselves partying are actually only about partying. Neither is it true that just because I never have my husband in my profile photos he is not an important part of my life. So why assume that a woman’s Facebook image is all she is just because she has a lot of baby photos there? Our actual lives may be very different from the ones we project on Facebook.

What’s interesting to me is why we project the selves we do on Facebook. Why do certain people want to project themselves as the party type? Why do I want to stress that I’m me, even though I’m married – avoiding a profile photo with my husband at all costs but ok with profile photos with other people (my baby, niece, friends etc.)? Why am I less defensive about my image being co-opted with that of my baby but not that of my husband?

For me, this is more interesting that saying – oh dear, another woman obsessed with her baby.

*I probably more eeked out by the idea of women using their husband's FB account rather than getting one for themselves. Though maybe they're just not that into FB or don't want to create an account for practical reasons (one of my colleagues had a stalker, for example). I am even more eeked out by people who start sending you combined Christmas greetings from them and their boyfriend almost as soon as they start dating and people who create a joint email account as soon as they get married and then only get that one. I mean, really, why? What if I want to send you an email that I don't want your husband to read?

12 comments:

R's Mom said...

I am still confused about this whole thing...while I definitely will NEVER use RD's FB account ever...I am pretty much okie with people putting baby pictures or any other picture as their profile pic...anyways whats the big deal..just because I have a cartoon character as my FB picture, doesnt mean I am one (am I?..well may be)

but I always feel, to each his/her own..I would never judge anyone by their pictures..especially FB pictures...(I have slowly started disliking FB for some weird reason!)

GB said...

I was very tempted to put up GBM's photo as my profile pic but I resisted the impulse because I've been one of those people who think it's dumb :D I even wanted to put up one on my blog just so people could say how cute she is...heh. But I'm afraid of getting judged as uncool :P

I still think putting up random baby pics (not of your own but those Farex kinda pics) and flowers is sort of lame. Btw, there are lots of guys who put up pics with 'babes' as their profile pic. I guess it makes them feel manly...whatever that might be!

The Bride said...

R's Mom actually the cartoon character/animal etc. was one of the things that came to mind while writing this post. It doesn't mean you are a cartoon but I would assume you chose that character because it captures what you are about. Thus, putting one's baby there would be communicating that one is all about one's baby. This seems to irritate many people, and I admit I was one of those who thought it was lame. But now I'm rethinking...why is it more or less lame than partying pics or whatever pseudo-cool pics the rest of us have?

On judging, FB is kind of made for judging. It's a mini-form of self-advertisement so there's bound to be judging.

@GB Please put up GBM's pic so we can all gush! And I share your admission of avoiding such acts (well at least the FB pic one...my reasons for not putting up baby pics on this blog are because my husband wouldn't like it) because they are uncool. But does this preoccupation with cool make us any less lame than those who put up their own baby pics.. or as you said, the flowers/cartoon people? Agree that the guys with 'babes' as their profile pics are the weird, the lamest would be guys with Abhishek/Brad Pitt or some other film star as their pic.

Poet Mamma said...

I agree about FB account being a reflection of a phase rather than a true identity - may be that is what drives the picture. It is unfair to judge a person's individuality based upon the profile pic. I have put up different pictures at different times. For e.g - me and the hubb in our anniversary month, me and the kids, a location I am about to visit, or this African art of mother-daughter-son painted and gifted to me by a close friend, and so on. One can potentially have completely different interpretations of me based on each of these pictures.

Also - yes - FB thrives of this judgmental streak in all of us. In fact, I have observed that many a times, people exhibit a different online personality that how you know them in reality - the picture too being a part of it.

I wrote a post on my observations - http://poetmamma.blogspot.com/2011/11/s-p-l-i-t-personality.html

Read when you get a chance. Will like to know what you think.

Bhargavi said...

Oh, this is my pet rant too ..I have posted pics with the husband sometimes , but have mostly stuck to solos.. That doesn't mean that my marriage is any less important to me..I do agree that some people think that just because some of us choose not to post sphaghetti-wearing-bloody-mary-in-hand-swigging-air-kissing pics, our lives are any less fun.Like you rightly pointed out- its all a phase..when mommyhood takes over, I am sure these same people will realize that their priorities have changed overnight..

The Bride said...

@PoetMamma yeah it's important to keep in mind the online personality thing. The medium through which one presents oneself changes the presentation. Even a personal blog like this one is not a complete reflection of who I am; when I'm writing about the same incident in my journal, the tone is different and I may come across as a slightly different person.

@Bhargavi a phase or just a part of who they are that they want to present in that medium.

RS said...

I have had only me,me and hubby and me with Chutku all as Profile pics and I ofcourse choose those that I *think* make me look good! But, for me, the whole point in putting a profile picture is to aid better search-if someone is searching for me then they can recognise me from the picture among the 100 odd people with the same name as mine.So ofcourse the pic has to have me and anyone else is optional...

As for using my Hubby's profile - he doesnt have one and doesnt want to have one either!! So there...

Ramya said...

Well, I am always a little irritated when people put up random pictures (flowers, cartoons, babies, celebrities etc.) simply because I like having a face to go with the name. That's because a lot of my friends on FB are cousins or people I knew from childhood, so I can't immediately recall their proper names since I know them mostly by a nickname, so it takes me a while to recognise who they are if they don't have an accompanying picture.

My FB profile picture has always had only me. Not family, not friends, not husband, nobody else. That's because I think it helps in better identification. But also possibly because I'm vain and want to put out pictures in which I look good and can have people say so to me.

The Bride said...

@RS sure, and I guess different people have different reasons for being on FB too. Like I'm not that keen on people finding me anymore.

@Ramya hehe, yeah we all have different reasons for the pics we choose. Just that vanity seems to be more tolerable to most people than being a very involved mother.

smartassbride said...

"What if I want to send you an email that I don't want your husband to read?" Spot on! I have read so many posts on couples checking each other's emails, and discussions on trust, and how it's a measure of how open they are with each other, but don't I have a say as a sender of the email as to who should read my email?

I can relate to checking out each other's emails on request, where one person is stranded in a no-internet zone, but regularly? I trust my husband, but that doesn't mean my best friend's email to me will be read by him. My friend deserves better than that!

As for FB profile pic, my reasoning is similar to Ramya's. I'd really like a face to go with the name, and it's difficult to do that when there's a baby pic or something else.

In a similar scenario, bloggers get slotted as well - right now, i dont have a label, but when I have a kid and I start writing about her, I'll probably be called a mommy blogger - but that's the funny part, because for me nothing has changed - I still write about what's most important to me at that point in life, but it's only writing abt. children that gets you slotted.

Sinduja said...

Hi! Okay..firstly, this is like one of the most underrated blogs ever! :) Glad to have found it. Secondly, as an unmarried woman, I have always wondered too why the minute someone got married, they find it important to put pictures with their husband or the kids when that happens. Frankly, it irritates me to no end. But then, I have long back come to terms with being a misanthrope, so I tell myself I am wrong as usual.


I guess we all have different priorities and for a few, relationships will always be the top priority. Also, we show off what we are proud about and since getting married/ having a kid is sub-consciously programmed into us as a milestone in life that has been achieved (I know many might disagree), we perhaps feel the need to show this off to the world.

The Bride said...

@smartassbride Yeah exactly about the email thing. And about the slotting - as you said, I'm beginning to see that only the 'mommy' brigade gets slotted in a sort of condescending way.

@sinduja I used to share your views but now I feel that too much is made (in a mean way) of women who highlight their marriage/babies. Socially conditioned or not, getting married or having a baby is a big life-changing event and perfectly natural to highlight it. Just as if someone got a bike/car or bought a house, and they posted a photo of themselves with it... or in the case of many guys, just the car/bike if its macho enough, not much comment would be made. But somehow if it's a baby, the general idea among the cool set is 'how infra dig'.