Today on my Twitter account I came across an article that spoke of: “evidence that ancient paleolithic venus statues were made by women who were examining their own bodies and sculpting them from their own point of view, not, as previously assumed, exaggerated features from an outside perspective.”

I found the theory extremely interesting in terms of women and their self image so immediately reposted it on my Facebook page only to learn a few minutes later that my post had been censored because it hadn’t followed “Community Standards”.

This is what I posted:

So I clicked on “Community Standards” just to see what kind of rule I’d broken and  could only assume that they were referring to rule # 14:

14. Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity

We restrict the display of nudity or sexual activity because some people in our community may be sensitive to this type of content. Additionally, we default to removing sexual imagery to prevent the sharing of non-consensual or underage content. Restrictions on the display of sexual activity also apply to digitally created content unless it is posted for educational, humorous, or satirical purposes.

Our nudity policies have become more nuanced over time. We understand that nudity can be shared for a variety of reasons, including as a form of protest, to raise awareness about a cause, or for educational or medical reasons. Where such intent is clear, we make allowances for the content. For example, while we restrict some images of female breasts that include the nipple, we allow other images, including those depicting acts of protest, women actively engaged in breast-feeding, and photos of post-mastectomy scarring. We also allow photographs of paintings, sculptures, and other art that depicts nude figures.

Since the photo I’d posted was obviously linked to an article that had in its title “ ancient Paleolithic venus statues”, it was obvious that the photo referred to sculpture thus, according to “Community Standards”, permissible. However, why was the following photo permitted on FB (shared and shared again infinite times):

The above photo (originally published in a “men’s magazine”) is not art and, in my opinion, could even be considered pornographic in that it obviously has the intention of stimulating sexual excitement. For Facebook this is ok by “community standards” whereas a photo of a 30,000 year old Venus Statue and related research is not.

Well let me tell you Facebook, when ”community standards” feel it’s ok to use a woman’s body in such a manner as to excite patriarchal fantasies simultaneously using diamonds that have been mined by forced child labor and furs acquired by the skinning of innocent animals, there’s a problem in how “community standards” are set.

A woman’s body is not vulgar. The vulgarity comes from who manipulates it. And censoring a photo that helps to explain a Paleolithic Venus statue in terms of women and their sense of identity  is not only vulgar, it’s blatant misogyny.

“My Name Is Venus” work-in-progress

This past June I became involved in a ladies’ group embroidery project. And for this project I’m making a huipil using female votive figures as a point of departure. As you can see, all of the images are based on these figurines. The censored article was directly related to an art project that I’m working on and I wanted to share the information with the group via FB.

The FB people need to adjust their “community standards” and understand the difference between Naked and Nude. The votives are nudes, the woman with the diamond bracelets is naked. Nude comes from nature, naked comes from male mentality. Furthermore, Facebook algorithms are not substitutes for ethics, good taste, and/or common sense.

Related: Toward Decolonizing Gender, Female Vision in the Upper Paleolithic + Were the Cave Paintings Painted by Women?