On "sexual objectification"

[Gadarene]

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.

It's much of a muchness with the Dworkins' mindset regarding sex, and it's pretty common in analyses of these things.

A shirt isn't just a shirt, it's representative of how women are being held back in science. Sex with a man isn't just sex, it's violent systematic oppression.

If you want to other someone, paint the tiniest, insignificant acts of even one individual as part of some overarching system of oppression.

Edit: And in a possibly vain attempt to try and bring m'self back on topic - treating an appreciative glance at a woman you find attractive as objectification, if they decide to interpret it that way. And yes, that does happen.

 

[TerranceL]

When it comes to the shirt, 20 years ago people would have been complaining that the shirt was corrupting to minors because children don't know how to react to such things. Women should be worried that some feminist are making the same arguments but instead of it being focused on the reaction of children they are focused on the reaction of adult women.

 

[TerranceL]

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?

I never actually had a problem with those verses as long as they were taken in context with the ones who said that the husband was to serve the wife too.

But as we know, these things are rarely taken in context.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

Actually we could do without any books.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I never actually had a problem with those verses as long as they were taken in context with the ones who said that the husband was to serve the wife too.

But as we know, these things are rarely taken in context.

Woman as a 'help meet' was a starting point, not a destination.

 

[JustMeSee]

It happened.
The RipCurl Final Print That's In Magazines And On The Posters Photo by arabesque1997 | Photobucket

I don't know you as a person, just as the object of a photo. Shame on me. I know there is a complete person under the skin.

 

[JustMeSee]

I guess I don't see it. Rape and sexual assault are crimes and are treated as crimes. If anything, the current culture has become more attuned to these matters so that date rape and marital rape are also treated appropriately, when formerly they were discounted. I don't think that, I dunno, a catcalling video going viral, detracts from dealing with more violent and serious offenses.

Dealing with bigger, more complex problems require much more thought and work. Condemning cat calling or even trying to talk to strangers on the city streets is easy. You can just say, "don't do it" or "well, I don't really do that". Simple video experiment. Easy to watch.

The nature of gender violence and domestic abuse are not so easy to show or view. It is more of an R rated topic we have trouble handling, unless of course you have the proper understanding.

It is gross, ugly, and complex. Hard not to sink into the heart.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

I don't know you as a person, just as the object of a photo. Shame on me. I know there is a complete person under the skin.

Did you read the first post I wrote on here to understand the context of why I shared that photo when I was asked about it? I can't piece together a complete portrayal of any person from a single snapshot anymore than I could know about you or anyone else here as a whole person from their avatar image. It's just one small representation. It's up to each of us to make the effort to get to know one another if we're interested. You're welcome to go through the 700+ posts I've written to have more of an idea about me as a person, and to click on my profile and see some of my original art work as well as the link to my Reverb Nation page where I've shared music I've written and recorded. I also just started a thread for my poems and lyrics. I believe in striving to make the absolute most of myself and enjoy my life fully, which includes embracing my youth and my appearance. I have PM enabled on here and you are not on my ignore list, so write and ask away if you wish.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

(insert diatribe about thin privilege)

Well I'm thin because of a rare endocrine disorder that has put me in intensive care twice this year alone and could kill me before I'm ever as old as you, so if there's privilege that comes with it, I'm happy to claim it. Though, I just found out I was shortlisted for studying law at Oxford, and they haven't a clue as to my size, so I guess if I did somehow gain weight it probably wouldn't impact the trajectory of my life ambitions all that much.

That's awesome, milk that train till you run it off the tracks! I've known a few models in my day and the vast majority of them were really sweet humble people.

Gather ye rosebuds while ye may. I'd be a fool not to.

 

[TerranceL]

Well I'm thin because of a rare endocrine disorder that has put me in intensive care twice this year alone and could kill me before I'm ever as old as you, so if there's privilege that comes with it, I'm happy to claim it. Though, I just found out I was shortlisted for studying law at Oxford, and they haven't a clue as to my size, so I guess if I did somehow gain weight it probably wouldn't impact the trajectory of my life ambitions all that much.

I was totally kidding you sweety. I was channeling my inner tumblrite.

I wish you good luck on your health issues. I'd prefer you healthy no matter what.

Wait.. I ... missed something in your post..

before I'm ever as old old old old as you

A cute girl on the internet called me old... I'm gonna need some time alone to work through this. (I'm teasing you again!)

 

[Ada Lovelace]

I was totally kidding you sweety. I was channeling my inner tumblrite.

I wish you good luck on your health issues. I'd prefer you healthy no matter what.

Wait.. I ... missed something in your post..



A cute girl on the internet called me old... I'm gonna need some time alone to work through this. (I'm teasing you again!)

Aw, thank you for the kind comments, and I'm sorry for misunderstanding your post. This forum has kinda made me tone-deaf. I used to be able to easily ascertain when a comment / post online is sincere, satirical, or sarcastic, but on here I can't. I've just come to expect more meanness here than I'm accustomed to elsewhere so my defenses fly up faster.

Ha, you're not officially old until you're 40, so you still have a little time.
(Kidding. My dad is way older than you and still beats my running time, so I won't see him as old until he's slower than I am)

 

[poolerboy0077]

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

These are prominent figures in feminism which are taught in many gender studies courses across the country. These are the people who are still influencing many of the famous young women who are activists online: Anita Sarkeesian, Laci Green, Suey Park, etc. It's not as though the minority of "sex positive" feminists (Germaine Greer, Christina Hoff Sommers, Camille Paglia, et al.) are dominating the field and overpowering the social landscape. They are derided and called pseudo-feminists by the majority.

But you want a non-radical contemporary? Alright. Here is Nussbaum interviewed for the magazine Literal on this very subject:

Martha Nussbaum: Well, the concept of objectification has been used by feminists for many years, to talk about how women are treated as not full people with full human dignity, but as things to be manipulated and controlled by men. What I have written before about this says that it is really a complicated concept that includes denial of autonomy, denial of subjectivity. Not taking people’s feelings into account, but also treating them as a mere instrument. That is, a woman is not shown respect as an end in herself, but is treated as a mere instrument of male fantasy and male desire.
​

 

[Joykins]

I see nothing to disagree with in Nussbaum's (isolated) quote.

 

[Linehogs]

Let this thread be about sexual objectification as advanced by feminists. Read before responding.

___​

Sexual objectification, as defined by many feminists, is the viewing of people solely as depersonalized objects of desire instead of as individuals with complex personalities and desires/plans of their own.

I completely agree with the OP. However I would add a few points. I have a daughter. I'm married. And at one point my wife, daughter, mother in law, and sister in law all lived with me lol. Prior to getting married I had no sisters and lived with my father. Women were a bit foreign to me. I did not understand them. But in a way.... that platform helped propel me to greater understanding once I got married. And I've learned more about women from raising my daughter than anything.

Here's my point. Men are primarily designed for visual stimulation. That doesn't necessarily mean sexual. Men are very simple in this regard. There isn't much more to say. But the interesting thing is..... women are designed to visually stimulate in complex and interesting ways. (Put sexuality aside because it will complicate the issue.) Obviously women are shapely while men are not. But more importantly women have a natural desire to appear..... how they feel. If they feel good about themselves they want to wear something which displays it. For example when my daughter is in a good mood she wears bright bubbly colors. I'm sure women could go into great detail about the clothes which match the mood. But my point is..... human nature already implements a degree of what the feminists want. Men are visually stimulated. When we see an attractive young lady in a bright dress we automatically think she must be fun or light hearted etc. And women.... are typically programmed by default.... to desire their exterior appearance to match their mood. It is 100% natural. The two feed off each other without even knowing it. And it is truly fascinating.

 

[Linehogs]

These are prominent figures in feminism which are taught in many gender studies courses across the country. These are the people who are still influencing many of the famous young women who are activists online: Anita Sarkeesian, Laci Green, Suey Park, etc. It's not as though the minority of "sex positive" feminists (Germaine Greer, Christina Hoff Sommers, Camille Paglia, et al.) are dominating the field and overpowering the social landscape. They are derided and called pseudo-feminists by the majority.

But you want a non-radical contemporary? Alright. Here is Nussbaum interviewed for the magazine Literal on this very subject:

Martha Nussbaum: Well, the concept of objectification has been used by feminists for many years, to talk about how women are treated as not full people with full human dignity, but as things to be manipulated and controlled by men. What I have written before about this says that it is really a complicated concept that includes denial of autonomy, denial of subjectivity. Not taking people’s feelings into account, but also treating them as a mere instrument. That is, a woman is not shown respect as an end in herself, but is treated as a mere instrument of male fantasy and male desire.
​

I have to disagree with Nussbaum. In some cases she is correct. If a man is walking down the street and observes a very attractive woman then he thinks many things. Some men... think sexually. Others control it. Men who watch tons of pornography will look at her and thing, "Man I'd like to.....(insert vulgarity here.)" But a man who is relatively free from that thinks, "What an attractive young lady. I always enjoy seeing a beautiful woman."

My point is..... men are every bit a slave to sexuality as women are. And sexual desire between men and women is a very natural and important part of relationships. Let me give another example. A married man who watches too much pornography does not desire his wife. Because he does not desire her.... he does not flirt with her etc. The wife.... by nature... enjoys fun. When a man flirts with her... it makes her feel good. It's a "fun" conversation. Being that it's her husband she feels comfortable continuing the flirtation etc. The man is essentially depriving his wife the joy of being desired. He may take most of her feelings into account. He may sit and talk with her because he enjoys her company. He may respect and lover her as a person. But when a good looking woman walks bye.... his head will follow... and her heart will break. And it all goes back to men and women.... being slaves of male sexuality. It is dominant. It effects how men interact with women. And it's natural.

It seems to me that certain aspects of Feminism are purely ideological. You will NEVER remove sexuality and all it's facets from the way men and women approach one another. You can.... and do.... however create barriers for it in certain environments. For example.... there is no room for sexuality in a professional setting. It will come into play because it is natural. But it should not. If a boss is considering promoting 2 women.... one highly attractive and one not.... but both nearly the same in terms of qualifications etc. The he should make the decision based on what's best for the company. It is possible that he would determine the more attractive woman more qualified because she may carry herself in a more positive fashion etc. It all depends. But typically... men and women should have mutual respect for one another in the workplace. That does not however..... mean they should ignore the differences between them. A man and woman typically have entirely different thought processes. They have entirely different means of accomplishing tasks. And each are equally effective depending on the circumstances.

Anyways.... I think some men.... who touch too much and watch too much pornography.... will tend to fit the description provided by your feminist. She said, "Not taking people’s feelings into account, but also treating them as a mere instrument. That is, a woman is not shown respect as an end in herself, but is treated as a mere instrument of male fantasy and male desire." It is 100% natural for males to desire possession over females. But that does not necessarily mean what she says. It does not mean all women are to men are "instruments of male fantasy." Ask any father how he views his daughter. You will not hear that. In fact.... it is most likely the daughter manipulating the father lol. This door really swings both ways. In essence.... I think Feminism focuses on a very small aspect of the natural communication between men and women and blows it out of proportion. Furthermore it seeks to change things which are not cultural.... but natural... in the male psyche. Men are slaves of their own sexual desire. Even those who exercise discipline and control over it.... are still slaves of it. It is no different than a smoker who quits smoking. He will always be a slave to it. He will always crave it. But he can exercise control over the desire. I highly recommend that to men. Especially if you are married. Cut out the pornography etc. Your marriage will improve ten fold. And you will begin to desire your wife again after only a few days. Flirting with her will be fun and make her feel good. It will also make the two of you closer. We are not meant to be unchained sexual creatures. Eventually such free reign in our desires hurts us. It takes up too much of our lives which could otherwise be used to improve ourselves. And there is always the danger that sexual perversion feeds on itself and goes out of control.

 

[poolerboy0077]

I see nothing to disagree with in Nussbaum's (isolated) quote.

Really? So in your mind, if a guy likes looking at women in magazines for their looks, is this sexual objectification as Nassbaum defines it? Has that guy dehumanized her? When you go to a grocery store, Joykins, so you have deep and meaningful conversation with them every interaction you have with them? If not you have possibly objectified them. After all, you're not taking into accoun their whole humanity but only are their to get your stuff ringe up at the cash register. Do you see how not being parsimonious with this definition leads to absurdities, such as attacking the scientist for his bowling shirt?

 

[Joykins]

If looking at girlie magazines causes you to not treat women as full people (quote from Nussbaum), then maybe you are objectifying them. I don't know why you are confusing treating women as people with deep philosophical conversations, though. Being polite to your cashier is all that is necessary for a brief commercial interaction.

 

[poolerboy0077]

If looking at girlie magazines causes you to not treat women as full people (quote from Nussbaum), then maybe you are objectifying them. I don't know why you are confusing treating women as people with deep philosophical conversations, though. Being polite to your cashier is all that is necessary for a brief commercial interaction.

It is often taken as inherently dehumanizing to look at women lustfully in this way. That's my point. This is why there was an outcry over the scientist's bowling shirt or why there's an outcry over scantily clad women in video games.

 

[Joykins]

It is often taken as inherently dehumanizing to look at women lustfully in this way. That's my point. This is why there was an outcry over the scientist's bowling shirt or why there's an outcry over scantily clad women in video games.

Yeah, but that's not exactly what Nussbaum said:

"That is, a woman is not shown respect as an end in herself, but is treated as a mere instrument of male fantasy and male desire."

A cartoon is just that, you can't "treat it" as a full person, that's just silly.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

In Christianity - which may or may not mean anything to some readers - the sin of 'lust' falls into this general condition.

To go back a bit, there are several Greek words which translate into 'love' and words connected to the concept in English. They are all found in the New Testament, where Jesus spoke of 'lust'.

The terms vary in meaning and application. Some refer to the 'giving' and 'seeking well being of' the object of love and some refer to the desire to obtain and use for one's own preference.

Where Jesus said (Matthew 5:27-28)"You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart..." The word translated 'desire her' is not 'love' in the sense of caring for and seeking well being. It is much the same as 'desiring ice cream'; where one's own enjoyment is sought and the ice cream merely a means to that goal.

Treating a woman - or man, (or Shetland pony) - in the same way as an ice cream cone is the Christian concept of 'objectification'. That is, 'lust'.

On the other hand, sexual intimacy - as viewed in Christianity - is normally included in marriage. Both the 'closeness' of the sex act and procreation are part and parcel of being married. Procreation has in some circles and times of Christianity been elevated above the 'closeness' aspect. I do not think that is doctrinally correct, but is as wrong as the 'sex in marriage is rape' views of extremist feminists (Andrea Dworkin).

Yes. "Objectification" is wrong. Not legally - I know of no laws (in the U. S.) forbidding such. (Possibly some of the 'moral codes' in Muslim nations may cover this in public; leading to the 'burka' mandates. But all those seem directed at women for being alluring rather than men for being predatory.) However, Christianity views it as wrong; immoral.

The other question in this is derived from 'intent'. Is the criticism of 'objectification' intended to protect women from predatory actions, or intended to vilify men?