I feel a great need for some feminist chit chat. This is a war in which I feel we have been losing ground for decades. Understanding objectification is a necessary core concept of feminism so I think it's important that we take measure of where we are.
Objectification
Fri, 2014-01-17 15:42
#1
Objectification
Fri, 2014-01-17 17:22
#2
I haven't watched this yet but I will tonight or tomorrow. I hope others will watch it too so we can discuss it.
'The Sexy Lie' We Should Be Talking About: Sexual Objectification
Posted: 01/14/2014 5:52 pm EST | Updated: 01/14/2014 5:52 pm EST
"I am here today to talk about a lie."
That's how politics professor Caroline Heldman opened her Jan. 2013 TEDxYouth San Diego talk on the topic of sexual objectification.
"I'd like to talk specifically about the lie, or the idea, that being a sex object is empowering.".....
Perhaps the most powerful part of the video is the end, where Heldman invites us to "imagine a different world," offering viewers tools to navigate, and eventually, change objectification culture. We highly recommend watching.
Pasted from <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/14/the-sexy-lie-tedx-talk-sexual-objectification_n_4597316.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular>
P.S. even though discussion in the prostitution threads prompted me to bring this here when I saw it, this thread is not intended to have anything at all to do with prostitution so please avoid it. I am particularly intrigued by the reference to "imagine a different world".
Fri, 2014-01-17 22:37
#3
Perhaps, but for me fighting objectification means above all fighting capitalism and class exploitation, and obviously you are not in favour of those remedies.
Sat, 2014-01-18 10:10
#4
I agree Lagatta. Every movement, be it anti-racism, feminism, social justice, benefits from a clear understanding of class struggle and worker exploitation. It requires a more nuanced understanding of inequity, and it is difficult sometimes for North Americans who do not have centuries of rigid and universally recognized class or caste stratification embedded in our sociocultural understanding, but it is critical to learn the relationships between class, exploitation and inequity of all kinds if we are to have any kind of grip on how to fight the good fight.
Sat, 2014-01-18 11:05
#5
@ lagatta
Yeah, I'd agree. And at an even more basic level empowerment and respect.
Of course the choices we make can help build up or tear down systems of oppression, but I'd say that the power (as opposed to freedom) to have choice and act on it comes before what choice an individual person might make.
Never mind that there is not likely ever to be agreement on some of these choices, and there are valid arguments on all sides, All these models, from retriction to libertarianism, are ripe for exploitation unless people (and even in class struggles that primarily comes down to women, who have always borne the brunt of that inequality) have power.
Sat, 2014-01-18 11:36
#6
I certainly didn't mean to negate the need for autonomous women's movements, or those of racialised or otherwise oppressed people! Just the need for an emancipatory, anti-capitalist perspective (of many socialist or anarchist nuances).
And of course there was deep oppression in some societies that claimed, at least, to have abolished capitalism.
What I'm referring to is a radicality that rules out the "leaning in" feminism of spokespersons of the powers-that-be such as Naomi Wolf. A feminism intent on climbing the corporate ladder, and not tearing that pyramid of money and power down to the ground.
Sat, 2014-01-18 12:16
#7
@ lagatta
I'm not meaning to say I think you're wrong, nor that capitalism and class aren't prime drivers here. I agree completely; sorry if that wasn't clear.
The first thing that sprang to my mind is the whole question of shame around sex (a lot of it based on religion) which has allowed it to become a commodity, and to be controlled, and not dealt with openly. I'mjust saying that within that system of oppression, there are a whole bunch of things intertwined,
Sat, 2014-01-18 13:07
#8
Perhaps, but for me fighting objectification means above all fighting capitalism and class exploitation, and obviously you are not in favour of those remedies.
That was so discouraging to read. I hope this doesn't turn into yet another ugly thread.
If Linda McQuaig were the leader of the NDP I would vote for her instead of Trudeau so yes I am concerned about class exploitation and while I wouldn't say I am anti-capitalist I am against FIPA and CETA and for strengthening social programs.
Why not edit your post to explain what you see as the intersection between capitalism and objectification? Why not take it as an opportunity to educate me and anyone else reading? If you can't do that can you at least edit it to take the personal stuff out? Can we not have one thread that is about the topic instead of about me?
I like the term babblers, it's cute, but don't babblers ever have normal conversations about anything? If you edit your post I will edit the personal stuff out of this one so the conversation can stay on topic instead of becoming about us.
Sat, 2014-01-18 13:23
#9
Nothing I said (I re-read my posts) was "personal". I didn't call you a Trudeau groupie or anything, just stated what to me was obvious - it is impossible to eliminate objectification - which is akin to commodification - without challenging the capitalist system that reduces people and other forms of life, as well as the Earth itself, to commodities. The Liberal party is a pro-capitalist party. Not that the NDP is perfect in that respect, but it doesn't enjoy the same kind of support from big business that the Liberals and Conservatives do.
If you want clearer indications into my outlook, look up such topics as "socialist feminism" and "ecosocialism". I don't have to write a tutorial 101 on those every time I post.
Sat, 2014-01-18 15:43
#10
Never mind.
I probably just got myself banned for being hostile again in another thread. If Rebecca does me a favor by not banning me I promised I won't post on babble anymore. Even if Rebecca says I can post I won't. It is painfully obvious I have nothing of value to offer in the eyes of most babblers and it's about time I accept it and move on instead of stupidly banging my head against the brick wall. I guess it wasn't so hard to chase me out of feminist forum as I claimed to Wage Zombie last night. Pride goeth before the fall as they say.
Legatta, by projecting your assumptions about my political views you force me to deny or allow your statements about me to stand leading other people to believe I hold the views you projected on me.
It would be like me saying "Well Legatta, seeing as you are a anarchist I don't see why you would want to discuss this topic"
Are you really going to play the ingenue and pretend you don't get it?
In any case, it doesn't matter because I am leaving. From the responses in this thread it is clear that you are all genuinely much more sophisticated and theoretically informed than I am. No false modesty there, you really are.
If you want clearer indications into my outlook, look up such topics as "socialist feminism" and "ecosocialism". I don't have to write a tutorial 101 on those every time I post.
No you certainly don't, sorry to have offended you by my suggestion of an alterative to erroneously expressing my political beliefs on my behalf.
I was curious about the intersection between capitalism and objectification you claim exists and mistakenly thought you might be willing to give a neophyte a nutshell version. Obviously I was wrong. The connection is probably incredibly tenuous and some sort of pointless philosophical game like the how many angels can dance on the head of a pin crap. I am not sufficiently interested in your personal views as to go off on a research expedition on your advice.
I will go listen to my silly little ted talk which is obviously well below anything that would be of interest to anyone here. Baby steps as they say.
Maybe if I google the title of the ted talk there will be other people who are interested and willing to communicate at my admittedly lower level of sophistication on this topic.
Sat, 2014-01-18 18:28
#11
Well, I hope you don't leave Pondering, but I can't help pointing out that if you can't handle babble, you're unlikely to manage much better with the rest of the internet. Despite the silly head-butting that occurs here on a semi-frequent basis, I've found few forums that can keep respectful discussion going at this level. Maybe your skin needs to be a little thicker to do this?
Sun, 2014-01-19 14:16
#12
thicker skin?
she was pretty much piled up on. in my world i would call it bullying.
Sun, 2014-01-19 22:58
#13
thicker skin?
she was pretty much piled up on. in my world i would call it bullying.
sorry, but in MY world, I'd call that attempting to call the bully a victim, as in this person couldn't take responsibility for their own behaviour, but preferred to blame everyone else. . Pondering dished out a lot of stuff at other posters, and then backed off it with some pretty aggressive passive/aggressive if I can't have my way I'm taking my toys and going home attitude. When multiple people with different POVs are all saying the same thing, it has to come from somewhere first.
It was tiresome, imo. I never reported her posting, but apparently others did, which only means they agree that a thicker skin might have scaled back on some of the pushy posting.
If someone were to call me a radical feminist pro-sexworker advocate, I wouldn't be arguing with them, but would appreciate that they noticed lol
For example, quizzical, you own your own words, opinions and POVs, and while blunt, you don't seem to blame everyone else for picking on you if they disagree, and provide links and quotes and comments to show you why they disagree. I don't at any time expect you to suddenly see the light and change your mind, and at the same time though you don't deliberately find single words and phrases to throw back at others in an attempt to attack and try to demean them.
Sat, 2014-04-19 00:29
#14
Well, I hope you don't leave Pondering, but I can't help pointing out that if you can't handle babble, you're unlikely to manage much better with the rest of the internet. Despite the silly head-butting that occurs here on a semi-frequent basis, I've found few forums that can keep respectful discussion going at this level. Maybe your skin needs to be a little thicker to do this?
what an ugly excuse for bullying!
Sat, 2014-04-19 00:32
#15
This Frech video clip uses gender flip to help us (maybe men mostly) reflect on the nuances of the Oppressed Majority.
Thu, 2014-05-22 19:09
#16
Thank-you for the kind words, I was feeling gas-lighted. Having this thread hijacked was discouraging.
The TED talk addresses the lack of understanding of the term "objectification". This thread was intended to address objectification as an isolated concept. The TED talk is only 12 minutes long and it is directed at youth so understandably well below the interest of many people here. It seemed as though this concept was too elementary for such a sophisticated "progressive" site. Apparently not.
Caroline Heldman, PhD, presents a compelling case that young women have not been taught how to recognize, navigate and change objectification culture. It appears many not so young women also lack even rudimentary understanding of the concept of objectification. On rabble, a supposedly progressive site, sexist anti-feminist views are championed that prove Heldman right.
In this thread http://rabble.ca/babble/sex-worker-rights/review-melissa-gira-grants-playing-whore-work-sex-work quoting this book review http://rabble.ca/books/reviews/2014/05/working-it-sex-work-labour are the following statements:
Modern iterations of feminism have condemned sex work and the idea of sexualizing or objectifying oneself as negative not just for that person, but for all women….
Objectification means treating a person as though they are an object. Objectification is dehumanizing and it is a negative for all people not just women. It is not possible to be a feminist and support the objectification of women under any circumstances. Sexualisation is fine unless you are referring to children.
By assuming that sex workers are literally "selling themselves" rather than offering a service, some feminists are able to claim that sex workers have destroyed their "self" in the sense that they have hollowed themselves out and the value of their sexuality has become degraded to the point that it symbolically effects (and objectifies) all women….
In Toronto, strip clubs are closing as fake massage parlour/brothels open. The value of female sexuality has been degraded by the spread of prostitution in Toronto. Visual objectification is no longer enough, physical objectification is required. That is the definition of reduced value. Female sexuality is not a thing that can be separated from the woman therefore to degrade female sexuality is to degrade women.
Somehow, whores have been left out of the protective bubble that "slut shaming" offers. Perhaps -- and this isn't something we'd ever want to admit -- we tend to view whores as less than women….
Melissa Gira may view whores as less than women but feminists don't. That's the whole point. We do view them as women.
I don't want to go off into a generalized discussion of whether or not prostitution should be decriminalized. I am only mentioning it in relation to objectification. The examples I came across on rabble just happened to be about prostitution.
Fri, 2014-05-23 16:02
#17
I just love Sarah Ditum and she recently wrote an excellent article about the mischaracterisation and smearing of Andrea Dworkin's work. I think the following passages are especially relevant to this discussion:
However, the mischaracterisation of [Andrea Dworkin] is illuminating because it confirms something that Dworkin herself observes: so naturalised is the belief that possession is inherent to sex, so total the eroticising of male power and female vulnerability, that even to imagine sex on equal terms is to be deemed an enemy of sex.
Intercourse is a work in search of a way to free human sexuality from this cruelty – an especially intractable entanglement, because not only does sex take place within the patriarchal coding of men as superior and women as inferior, but furthermore, the individuals participating in the fuck understand it to reaffirm that structure whenever it takes place. When women are not seen as human, intercourse enforces their status as objects...
...she identifies the possibility of sex in which each party recognises the other as fully human and, rather than dominating the other, makes himself vulnerable... to the peril of being known by another: "fucking can be a communion, a sharing, mutual possession of an enormous mystery." It is an ideal of sex as something not "taken" from another but shared with them, a moment of contact through which both parties can be changed.
This is not some conservative call for the sanctity of monogamy. Instead, sex is sanctified as a moral exchange between two who may be partners or may be strangers, but who must recognise both each other and themselves as equal in humanity, and equally liable to be transformed through their intimacy.
Even if you believe that prostitution and pornography are fundamentally acceptable, the challenge of Dworkin is to explain why they should exist – rather than merely accepting their current existence as an argument for their continuation. We are creatures of culture and Intercourse is the promise that we are not doomed to the endless replication of misogyny, but can reinvent that culture in new and better shapes. Intercourse the book is a paradigm of intercourse the act as Dworkin wishes it to be: an encounter between equals (Dworkin and her sources) that creates new states and possibilities in both. "Habits of deference can be broken," writes Dworkin, "and it is up to writers to break them. Submission can be refused; and I refuse it."
http://www.newstatesman.com/sarah-ditum/2014/05/sarah-ditum-andrea-dworkin-sex-terrorism
Tue, 2014-05-27 18:39
#18
That was a wonderful article. I am a fan now too. Things have gotten so much worse since then in terms of modern sexual programming through the explosion of porn. At least some young men are now realizing that it is making them sexually dysfunctional to the extent that they can't enjoy normal sex.
Here is some evidence of the common confusion and the great brainwashing job that has been done on a generation of women:
Soon after the release of my video, I found in my e-mail inbox a link to a Cameron Diaz quote where she purports: “I think every woman does want to be objectified,” adding that it’s healthy for at least some part of you to feel that way. It’s, apparently, “empowering.”.....
Because all around us is this idea that we, as women, gain sexual respect by being the most innocently seductive or by giving the best blow-jobs – sexual acts that have little-to-nothing to do with our own physical pleasure and satisfaction.
Being objectified is always disempowering. She is confusing being admired physically with being an object.
The problem with the conflation of “owner” and “object” is that it perpetuates the idea that female sexuality is for everyone except the woman in question. It gives cadence to the bullsh*t social myth that powerful female sexuality equals pleasing partners, rather than knowing and pleasing oneself.
And when it comes to the popular notion that powerful female sexuality is found in wielding sexualization and reveling in objectification, I’d argue that it’s being force-fed to us to keep us in our place.
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/05/sex-positivity-critical-analysis/
"Achieving power over men" through sexuality is a battle of the sexes portrayal of male/female relations not one of shared humanity and equality.
Tue, 2014-05-27 19:03
#19
Timebandit
What we've seen down in Isla Vista this past weekendis the worst case end result of the objectification of women. PZ Myers said it well:
The real culprit in all of this is a culture of thriving misogyny, in which women are dehumanized and regarded as grudging dispensers of sex candy, who must be punished if they don’t do their job of servicing men. Elliot Rodger was a spoiled, entitled kid who had his brain poisoned with this attitude. First he learned that women are disposable, then he learned that they were evil for not having sex with him, and then he rationally put together two delusions and acted on them.
Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/05/25/well-that-explains-everything/
It's been said over and over many times over the last few days. It might be the start of some conversations, but I'm sure we'll just descend into hair-splitting mansplains about what objectification is or isn't momentarily.
What's clear to me is that male sexual entitlement (and it's partner, female objectification) kills, and it will keep on killing.
Tue, 2014-05-27 22:42
#20
What we've seen down in Isla Vista this past weekendis the worst case end result of the objectification of women. PZ Myers said it well:The real culprit in all of this is a culture of thriving misogyny, in which women are dehumanized and regarded as grudging dispensers of sex candy, who must be punished if they don’t do their job of servicing men. Elliot Rodger was a spoiled, entitled kid who had his brain poisoned with this attitude. First he learned that women are disposable, then he learned that they were evil for not having sex with him, and then he rationally put together two delusions and acted on them.Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/05/25/well-that-explains-everything/
It's been said over and over many times over the last few days. It might be the start of some conversations, but I'm sure we'll just descend into hair-splitting mansplains about what objectification is or isn't momentarily.
What's clear to me is that male sexual entitlement (and it's partner, female objectification) kills, and it will keep on killing.
yep, and IMV those who enable male sexual entitlement are complicit in the murdering of women 'cause their women....i didn't get how my mom felt about the Montreal massacre never thought i would. now i do.
Thu, 2014-05-29 01:36
#21
This is objectification.
Read the comments below then check out the picture at the link. Don't look before reading the comments.
How did the figure of Irish mezzo Tara Erraught prompt such a seething mass of contempt from a handful of London critics?(Hat tip to Norman Lebrecht for compiling these breathtakingly gross comments on his site, Slipped Disc.)
In case you missed them:
Andrew Clark, writing for the Financial Times: "Tara Erraught's Octavian is a chubby bundle of puppy-fat." He adds, as an afterthought, that her performance was "gloriously sung." (As our friend Anne Midgette wrote last night for the Washington Post: "If [that's] true, surely merits more than an offhand mention?")
In The Guardian, Andrew Clements: "It's hard to imagine this stocky Octavian as this willowy woman's plausible lover." (Because relationships between people of different sizes is, of course, unimaginable.)
My erstwhile Gramophone Magazine colleague Michael Church, writing in The Independent: "This Octavian (Tara Erraught) has the demeanor of a scullery-maid." (He didn't bother to remark on her singing at all, though she was one of the two leads in the opera. One of London's foremost critics couldn't possibly have squeezed even a glancing mention within the roughly 250-word confines that the paper assigned him. Tough to write short, I guess.)
Rupert Christiansen in The Telegraph: "Tara Erraught is dumpy of stature and whether in bedroom déshabille, disguised as Mariandel or in full aristocratic fig, her costuming makes her resemble something between Heidi and Just William. Is Jones simply trying to make the best of her intractable physique or is he trying to say something about the social-sexual dynamic?" (Let's leave aside Christiansen's strenuous attack on English syntax, and just look what he himself is trying to say.)
Richard Morrison in The Times of London: "Unbelievable, unsightly and unappealing." (Short and to the point, at least.)
Now go look at the picture of her. The entire article is worth a read.
Thu, 2014-05-29 09:41
#22
unfkn real, piss ant male critics need to be fired or discredited completely in respect to their so called job description!!!!!!!!!!
Thu, 2014-05-29 09:59
#23
Quizzical, indeed the Polytechnique Massacre was about murderous male entitlement, but not directly sexual in that killer's case. He thought he had some kind of penis-given right to enrol in engineering school, denied by those damned uppity women who dared earn higher marks than his...
Thu, 2014-05-29 12:41
#24
The only barely unobjectable one is Church's, if only because her demeanor could possibly have a bearing on a acting/peformance (Im thinking of it in terms of someone playing a aristocrat from Downtown Abbey but failing because they seems more like a scullery maid than a noble in demeanor.. That would be a legit critique).
The rest was just plain horrible. Rather like the critics for certain women politricians where the critics focus on her clothes which they never do for men unless they are extreme in some way
Fri, 2014-05-30 09:30
#25
Bra-strap furor at Labrador school made teen girls 'scapegoats'
Students sent home from Labrador City high school told 'distracting' clothing contrary to dress code
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/bra-strap-furor-at-l...
Mon, 2014-09-01 13:33
#26
This is so many kinds of wrong.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/08/28/naked-sushi-vancouver-photos_n_5...
Naked Sushi Inc., a catering company that opened in Vancouver this summer, displays its food on naked women. Yep. For real.
....
There are some rules, though, according to the company's website:
- Patrons are not allowed to speak to or touch the models
- Chopsticks are the only things allowed to pick up the sushi
- Models must be treated with respect
- No "lewd or inappropriate gestures or comments" are tolerated
Using a woman as a serving dish is not respectful in any sense of the word.
Mon, 2014-09-01 17:00
#27
I liked this comment and had thought the same thing:
July Bidle · Top Commenter · Laurentian High School
"Aside from the obvious sexist and objectification issues, Sushi should be served cold! Body heat is going to warm it up fast and that promotes bacteria growth, unless of course the models are chilled first, which suggests a cadaver.
Nothing about this is remotely appealing!"
It is one of those weird obsessional, and yes, deeply sexist, practices.
Tue, 2014-09-02 13:33
#28
As entertaining as I find naked women, this is disgusting and Ive seen it in some shows Ive been to (trade shows, IT conferences etc)
Fri, 2014-10-03 19:36
#29
[url=http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/special/civicelection2014/stboniface/St... council candidate in trouble over tweeted photos:[/url]
Brad Gross, who ran for mayor in 2010 and is now seeking the council seat in St. Boniface, has earned criticism for a series of four photos he tweeted over the spring and summer.Among them is a photoshopped picture of a woman with large pumpkins for breasts. Another is a retweet of photo tweeted by actor Charlie Sheen showing a woman’s bottom in tight jeans with the caption "I want."
Read the comments at your own risk.
Fri, 2014-10-03 21:37
#30
Gotta make sure the kids get the message early.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/targets-sexist-baby-pyjamas...
The boy clothing features a Superman logo and the line, “Future Man of Steel,” while the girl item has the same logo but the line: “I Only Date Heroes.”
“It seems kind of ridiculous to talk about who an infant girl is going to date,” said Aimee Morrison, an associate professor of English at the University of Waterloo.
“Even for tiny babies, we seem to think of girls as gaining power and worth from whom they’re romantically linked to and boys get to become agents of action in their own right.”
Fri, 2014-10-03 23:33
#31
“It seems kind of ridiculous to talk about who an infant girl is going to date,” said Aimee Morrison, an associate professor of English at the University of Waterloo.
Yeah, I agree. From the moment young children can tell the difference between male and female bodies, we drill it into their heads that this difference is such a BIG DEAL, then we wonder why men and women have such a hard time communicating with each other as adults.