On "sexual objectification"

[PsychoSarah]

Anyone else feel that, in response to growing discontent with women being objectified in the media, male objectification has increased recently?

 

[Joykins]

From Stanford.edu:
“Pornography defines women by how we look according to how we can be sexually used. … Pornography participates in its audience's eroticism through creating an accessible sexual object, the possession and consumption of which is male sexuality, as socially constructed; to be consumed and possessed as which, is female sexuality, as socially constructed” (MacKinnon 1987, 173).

“… A sex object is defined on the basis of its looks, in terms of its usability for sexual pleasure, such that both the looking—the quality of gaze, including its points of view—and the definition according to use become eroticised as part of the sex itself. This is what the feminist concept of ‘sex object’ means” (MacKinnon 1987, 173).

From Wikipedia:
In 1987, Dworkin published Intercourse, in which she extended her analysis from pornography to sexual intercourse itself, and argued that the sort of sexual subordination depicted in pornography was central to men's and women's experiences of heterosexual intercourse in a male supremacist society. In the book, she argues that all heterosexual sex in our patriarchal society is coercive and degrading to women, and sexual penetration may by its very nature doom women to inferiority and submission, and "may be immune to reform".
--Andrea Dworkin

"The Pragmatist and the Feminist" :
If the social regime permits buying and selling of sexual and reproductive activities, thereby treating them as fungible market commodities given the current capitalistic understandings of monetary exchange, there is a threat to the personhood of women, who are the "owners" of these "commodities." The threat to personhood from commodification arises because essential attributes are treated as severable fungible objects, and this denies the integrity and uniqueness of the self.
--Professor Margaret Jane Radin

I see you had to reach back to the 1980s to find these.

Dworkin, MacKinnon, et al. were kind of on the extreme of radical feminism back in the day. There are a lot of other movements in feminism than just this one, as you probably know. You can still be a sex-positive feminist, for example, yet object to being, well, objectified.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The most literal translations say helper, but, if you want to keep it to the sense of comfort alone, you've moved past literality into interpretation. And if we take it into the sense of "comfort women" because it's all synonymous and stuff, well, then you're back to sexual objectification, aren't you?

Help or helper is a good general translation.

 

[Paulos23]

The primary attribute of a wife to help her husband in no way limits her other abilities. See Proverbs 31 for a broader picture of woman's abilities.

And that just proves that limiting them to serving men is a waste of their ablities. I know women that run compainies, does their husband need to serve them now?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Anyone else feel that, in response to growing discontent with women being objectified in the media, male objectification has increased recently?

Yes, but I see that as a positive trend.

The culture has been lopsided in its appreciation for the beauty and eroticism of human bodies for many centuries, in favor of female bodies. Back in the days of the Roman Empire, it was male bodies that were perceived as especially sexual.

If there could be a better balance between the two, I would find that interesting. I suspect that it would be beneficial.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Cute Tink]

The primary attribute of a wife to help her husband in no way limits her other abilities. See Proverbs 31 for a broader picture of woman's abilities.

I'm curious about this statement. Why do we need to look to Proverbs 31 to learn of a woman's abilities? Are we not capable of seeing that women, like men, are capable by looking at reality?

 

[GNJ]

Why do I keep opening and reading threads that I know are going to be disgustingly anti-women and are just going to make me feel like throwing up on everything? I must be some sort of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

 

[poolerboy0077]

Why do I keep opening and reading threads that I know are going to be disgustingly anti-women and are just going to make me feel like throwing up on everything? I must be some sort of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

How is this anti-woman?

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

It seems like "sexual objectification" is a trump card that makes it impossible for anybody other than the people playing that card to ever be right.

If you appreciate one thing about a woman's body you are an oppressor. If you fail to appreciate another thing about a woman's body, such as muscularity, you are an oppressor.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm curious about this statement. Why do we need to look to Proverbs 31 to learn of a woman's abilities? Are we not capable of seeing that women, like men, are capable by looking at reality?

Proverbs 31 describes a very successful family and the woman's unique capabilities in helping to make it so. Her husband no doubt built the house, but she made it a home. Does anyone question the need for more of this, especially in America?

 

[Cute Tink]

Proverbs 31 describes a very successful family and the woman's unique capabilities in helping to make it so. Her husband no doubt built the house, but she made it a home. Does anyone question the need for more of this, especially in America?

I'm already planning my vineyard and I'll work on selling my clothing soon enough.

My point being that I just don't see why we need to look to a book to realize that women are capable as human beings, just like men. But then, I don't think that either men or women have a limited "place in society". A couple should complement each other's strengths and balance their weaknesses.

 

[Gadarene]

Anyone else feel that, in response to growing discontent with women being objectified in the media, male objectification has increased recently?

I don't know if the two are related, but there's always been male objectification or one form or another.

And as ever, few care about the latter.

 

[Gadarene]

Who are these people that have such a huge influence in the media? What programs do they appear on? What mainstream media columns do they write?

Go read anything vaguely feministy on the Guardian, for example

Yes... I am a little familiar with #shirtgate. What evidence do you have that he was at all bullied?

You missed the bit where he ended up publicly crying after being the subject of a twitter hashtag mob, being accused of holding women back in science (and if women really are going to be kept back in science because of one shirt, then let's skip that whole trying to achieve gender equality thing because they're clearly not equal to men), being accused of misogyny/hating women?

 

[Gadarene]

I thought objectification was more like treating/viewing a woman as an object (for sexual gratification) *as opposed to* treating her like another human being that has thoughts and feelings. You don't have to become intimately familiar with her thoughts and feelings to have basic respect for the state. No one expects you to have deep philosophical conversations with the checkout cashier, or not to notice when someone attractive walks by, or not to enjoy sex with women.

We do expect you not to catcall, pinch our butts, treat/talk about us like walking vaginas or like we are categorically stupid, or stare like some stalkery stalker type. That is, unless you know someone well enough to know that she would like this; intimacy changes things.

I've seen *looking* at a woman going down the street described as objectification.

I know people like to pretend these definitions are made up, but they aren't, and the constant denial gets rather tiresome.

 

[Gadarene]

I see you had to reach back to the 1980s to find these.

Dworkin, MacKinnon, et al. were kind of on the extreme of radical feminism back in the day. There are a lot of other movements in feminism than just this one, as you probably know. You can still be a sex-positive feminist, for example, yet object to being, well, objectified.

Their age is irrelevant, the attitudes still exist, be it in demonising everyday interactions, shaming men who enjoy pornography, general sex-negativity.

 

[Joykins]

Their age is irrelevant, the attitudes still exist, be it in demonising everyday interactions, shaming men who enjoy pornography, general sex-negativity.

Yeah, but Dworkin...well, she was an odd duck (I heard her speak once, she was a great speaker), but the whole sexual intercourse is essentially a violent act idea is pretty messed up. It's a completely different level of extreme.

 

[Gadarene]

Yeah, but Dworkin...well, she was an odd duck (I heard her speak once, she was a great speaker), but the whole sexual intercourse is essentially a violent act idea is pretty messed up. It's a completely different level of extreme.

I don't see that much difference between people who think sex is hatred of women vs people who think wearing a particular shirt is hatred of women, to be honest.

They're all bloody nuts.

 

[Skaloop]

I don't see that much difference between people who think sex is hatred of women vs people who think wearing a particular shirt is hatred of women, to be honest.

They're all bloody nuts.

I don't think many (if any) people think the guy hates women because of his shirt. It has more to do with the context in which he wore it.

I've got a t-shirt that I wear to my wife's gigs that says "I'm [having sex with] the drummer." The font used is letters made using images from porn pictures. Nobody has suggested that I hate women because I wear that. But I wear it to gigs at bars. I don't wear it to the office. I won't wear it if I am ever interviewed on television regarding a scientific breakthrough.

There's nothing really wrong with the shirt. But he shouldn't have been wearing it in that situation. Not specifically because of how women are portrayed on the shirt, but because it was inappropriate for the context.

 

[Gadarene]

I don't think many (if any) people think the guy hates women because of his shirt.

He was accused repeatedly of misogyny.

It has more to do with the context in which he wore it.

I've got a t-shirt that I wear to my wife's gigs that says "I'm [having sex with] the drummer." The font used is letters made using images from porn pictures. Nobody has suggested that I hate women because I wear that. But I wear it to gigs at bars. I don't wear it to the office. I won't wear it if I am ever interviewed on television regarding a scientific breakthrough.

There's nothing really wrong with the shirt. But he shouldn't have been wearing it in that situation. Not specifically because of how women are portrayed on the shirt, but because it was inappropriate for the context.

I'd agree it wasn't necessarily work-appropriate, but it didn't need to become a storm in a teacup either that detracted from the amazing work he'd accomplished. If it was just a matter of one guy dressing improperly at work, why wasn't it simply treated as such? Why all the whinging about how it's apparently keeping women out of science? Do these self-appointed defenders of women really think women are that pathetic?

I imagine if I'd just finished a decade-long mission to land a space probe on a bloody comet I'd be a bit deranged and wouldn't necessarily make a brilliant choice of clothing. I imagine many people wouldn't.

I remain unconvinced that this carryon isn't of Dworkin-level stupidity.

 

[Joykins]

I thought the shirt was supposed to be a problem because it supposedly discouraged girls to go into science? I don't know, since I thought the whole brouhaha was pretty darn stupid.