empowered expression or objectification?

[ValleyGal]

Air New Zealand has used bikini-clad models from Sports Illustrated to make a safety video for their airline. There is a lot of push-back, saying they are objectifying women.

Miley Cyrus twerks all over tv in nearly no clothes to speak of, and she is called an "empowered woman" who is expressing her sexuality.

Not that I'd like to see either, I would prefer a bikini-clad model providing safety tips over watching this "empowerment" any day. But I can't help but wonder, what's with the double-standard?

 

[Odetta]

I personally don't consider Mylie empowered. Desperate and foolish and exploited, yes. But empowered, no.

 

[DZoolander]

As much as I'm loathe to admit it - I've actually given the Miley Cyrus phenomenon some thought. Mostly it's because when I hear people talking about something as fact (that being that her shows are "sexy") - and my own feelings about it are so out of accord with those "facts" - it makes me wonder why that is.

The simple reality is that I find zero things sexy about Miley Cyrus...and it makes me curious as to why. Is it a factor of age (meaning - that I'm so much significantly older than her that she's just outside of the range that I could even look at that way)? Like - I feel sorta the same way about Selena Gomez. I hear people talk about how "hot" she is - but when I look at her she strikes me as a little girl. It's almost revolting for me to hear men my age and older refer to her as "hot".

...or...is it something else? Kind of like...I don't have the same feelings of being irked by Selena Gomez as I do with Miley Cyrus...so there has to be something different. Ya know? Selena Gomez is a little girl - but she doesn't irritate me. Miley does.

The reason I came up with is that not only is she just a kid - but she also is just so darn contrived IMHO. There's nothing less "sexy" in my eyes than trying too hard to be sexy...and that's her gig entirely. It's like she's this spastic kid improvising things as she goes along simply for shock-sexual-value...and it just comes off really really badly.

Kind of like...if you watch that MTV award show that got everyone into an uproar. You see her come on the stage - and you can see her mind just working. "What should I do now? Oh, black girl over there with big butt twerking? Lemme go run over there and slap it. Okay. That was sexy. Now what can I do?"

...and I seriously think that's what's going on in her head.

So ehhhh...certainly not sexy in my eyes...and I dunno how anyone can derive "empowering" out of that mess either.

 

[ValleyGal]

Okay, maybe Miley was not a good example of "empowered." All those women out there who are wearing no pants on public streets, sheer/see-through "dress" exposing underwears on the red carpet, tweeting half nude selfies, and wearing little more than a bikini on-stage, ultra low-cut or sheer nothings to award ceremonies, etc. there are a lot of them - take your pick..... but they will say that they are empowered and are in control of their own sexuality and have no problem with what they are doing.

Women's groups are not publicly crying out that these "empowered" women are exploiting women....yet an ad for New Zealand Air gets all kinds of public outcry for showing women in bikinis. That is the point of this thread...not discussing Miley or anyone else in particular. I'm just curious about the double-standard....are we empowered or are we exploited?

 

[LinkH]

Air New Zealand has used bikini-clad models from Sports Illustrated to make a safety video for their airline. There is a lot of push-back, saying they are objectifying women.

Miley Cyrus twerks all over tv in nearly no clothes to speak of, and she is called an "empowered woman" who is expressing her sexuality.

Not that I'd like to see either, I would prefer a bikini-clad model providing safety tips over watching this "empowerment" any day. But I can't help but wonder, what's with the double-standard?

The problem is with looking in order to lust. Singers who dress in their underwear or swimsuits like this and twerk in public are either trying to arouse lust, or else too short-sided to realize what it can do.

 

[DZoolander]

lol - but I so enjoyed my little diatribe about Miley.

I suppose there's a fine line between empowered and exploited - and it's a matter of perspective.

The thing that I find odd about it is that (at least within my lifetime) - women have always pretty much had that freedom. Madonna showed a lot of skin back in the 80's...and I remember her writhing around singing "Like a Virgin" on MTV's music awards way back in the day.

Prior to that in the 70's and early 80's, there was no shortage of nudity in media, music, etc...so they had that liberty then as well.

At no point do I remember the shackles of oppressiveness during my lifetime...and I am (at least according to my wife) middle aged now. So - hearing 20-somethings wearing scant-amounts of clothing talking about it as if it's something trailblazing seems just utterly weird to me. June Cleaver, had she actually lived, would be long dead by now...and the Beav is nearly 70 years old. That time has long come and gone.

So, no, taking control of your own sexuality ain't exactly empowering and trailblazing if it's always been a part of your social reality...and it has been for as long as any of these people have been walking around.

So, I'm inclined to say it's more exploitation and exhibitionism than anything else.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I think it was Will Smith who said nowadays young women think they're empowering themselves by showing more skin, but actually it's a sign of insecurity because they're feeling like the only skill they've got to offer is their sexuality.

But then it could also just be a roasting hot day too.

 

[ChristianGolfer]

Not that I'd like to see either, I would prefer a bikini-clad model providing safety tips over watching this "empowerment" any day. But I can't help but wonder, what's with the double-standard?

Is it really a double-standard, though? Or is it just different people having different perspectives on it?

Have the same people who called the commercial objectification called Cyrus empowered?

Maybe some have, I don't really know. But I've seen a lot of push back from feminists against Cyrus' claims of empowerment. Like this one, for example:

The Difference Between Being Sexually Empowered and Twerking.

 

[DZoolander]

That's a good editorial piece - and I agree with it wholeheartedly.

 

[ValleyGal]

Perhaps my post about Cyrus was missed. I said it was a poor example and then gave other better examples. But in reality, even those are not enough. The article lost my interest when it started in the first paragraph saying that there is nothing morally wrong with a woman who "owns" her sexuality and sleeps around. On this forum, we are Christians. This should bother us.

There absolutely is a double standard. Women want men to take us seriously, to stop exploiting women sexually, etc. yet we flaunt our stuff in front of them on our own volition, then get mad when bikini-clad women are in a commercial about airline safety. Different people having different perspectives is not helping "feminism" as a movement when feminism is not united in their goal. And if I, a feminist, can get confused about these issues, think how much more a man would - how are people to know what's the difference between one person's "perspective" that a certain thing is just empowerment and real exploitation? There is no distinction.

 

[ChristianGolfer]

I don't flaunt anything. I don't appreciate being painted with that brush.

When Miley Cyrus or any other celebrity flaunts or twerks or dresses that way I don't think it's fair or even close to being accurate to say that they are representative of all women.

Seriously. I can't control Miley Cyrus. I don't have to take the blame for the way she dresses.

There is no double standard. A double standard is when the SAME person (or entity) judges different people unfairly. It is not a double standard when various different people have different opinions about things.

 

[ChristianGolfer]

And if I, a feminist, can get confused about these issues, think how much more a man would - how are people to know what's the difference between one person's "perspective" that a certain thing is just empowerment and real exploitation? There is no distinction.

This is like saying that if all Christians can't agree on whether to baptize infants or adults, by immersion or sprinkling, then no one will ever be able to tell the difference between one person's perspective and real baptism.

It's not even possible for all people to agree on every detail. If that's a requirement for understanding then I guess human beings are doomed to be confused all the time about just about everything.

 

[mkgal1]

I loved the concluding statment from the article that CG linked:

It's not what we wear or how we gyrate in public that gives us ownership over the things we do with our bodies -- it's our ability to balance our sexuality with being a rational adult that gives us the ultimate power to prove sexuality is not something to be feared, but embraced.

 

[mkgal1]

And if I, a feminist, can get confused about these issues, think how much more a man would - how are people to know what's the difference between one person's "perspective" that a certain thing is just empowerment and real exploitation? There is no distinction.

IMO......a man's response should be based on *his* perspective---not merely a reaction to women. Isn't that being led by another person? Isn't that being vulnerable to deception and manipulation?

A bit of a digression....but I just read this in the news:

Prostitute Injected Google Exec With Heroin, Left Him to Die on Yacht, Police Say - ABC News

....this woman (the prostitute) may consider herself "empowered" over this Google exec (that's now dead). IMO, though, both were being carried away into greed and entitlement ( even to the point of murder). IOW......lust is what was in control---not either person.

As far as "no distinction"? Can't people allow other people to express their own thoughts about the difference? I thought Sinead O'Connor was pretty clear in her letter to Miley (not that you're *only* referring to Miley....but, in general, it's the same attitude). Isn't that where communication comes in?

 

[ValleyGal]

I don't flaunt anything. I don't appreciate being painted with that brush.

When Miley Cyrus or any other celebrity flaunts or twerks or dresses that way I don't think it's fair or even close to being accurate to say that they are representative of all women.

Seriously. I can't control Miley Cyrus. I don't have to take the blame for the way she dresses.

There is no double standard. A double standard is when the SAME person (or entity) judges different people unfairly. It is not a double standard when various different people have different opinions about things.

I don't either, but I'm painting all women as being participants in the dynamic. Again, we are NOT talking about Miley.

 

[ValleyGal]

It's not even possible for all people to agree on every detail.

No one said they have to agree on EVERY detail, but the basic premises should have some sort of coherence.

 

[mkgal1]

I don't either, but I'm painting all women as being participants in the dynamic. Again, we are NOT talking about Miley.

That's just what confuses the issue, though. Not all women have the same perspective or behavior (on anything, really).

 

[ValleyGal]

That's just what confuses the issue, though. Not all women have the same perspective or behavior (on anything, really).

That is precisely why we are all part of the dynamic

 

[mkgal1]

No one said they have to agree on EVERY detail, but the basic premises should have some sort of coherence.

Simply because we're all women?

That's one reason why generalities aren't helpful. There becomes an expectation that there's some sort of "sameness". We're all unique....we're not programmed robots with a set standard built in.

 

[mkgal1]

That is precisely why we are all part of the dynamic

What dynamic?

You're bringing up two (opposing) perspectives. I don't understand how there can be a unified dynamic.