Female Objectification as an Accepted Standard? - Page 2

tadpole256 · 03-17-2007, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisg967

Excellent article, Tadpole. I doubt it's just the IT industry that has fallen to this low, nor is it only women who cheapen themselves for money.

Thank you, and sadly I am sure you are right...

tadpole256 · 03-17-2007, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnightOfSappho

REAL artists are in it for the art and just don't make a lot of monet at it.

What people call art these days I call artistic laziness. It's easy to shock; it is a LOT harder to provoke thought.

That's for sure...

winston53660 · 03-17-2007, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tadpole256

That's for sure...

There use to be a division btwn art and commercialism. Use to be....

Nightrider · 03-17-2007, 11:38 PM

Some of the pictures I liked, and others. . . well, offended me. . .

I think that female objectification is good up to a certain point. . . as long as women are able to retain some degree of dignity and self respect.

We guys have an instinct which sometimes overrides our sense of decency. Any man can say that. . . after all - we're guys. . .

I'd love it if we started some kind of poll here just for the guys - it may give us some good feedback on this subject matter. . .

tadpole256 · 03-19-2007, 12:36 PM

If we start one for the guys, we have to start one for the gals too...

Now let me ask you this, do you think that our tendency to objectify women is really "because we are guys" is that a valid excuse?

I am not being accusatory here, I am simply opening a topic for further discussion.

Nightrider · 03-19-2007, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by tadpole256:

Quote:

Now let me ask you this, do you think that our tendency to objectify women is really "because we are guys" is that a valid excuse?

Absolutely not.

I think that is why limitations have to be set (be it by ourselves, religion, the government, or what have you). . .

I like this quote:

Quote:

By the end of 2004, there were more than 420 million pages of porn on the web. Estimates are that internet users spend on average of 14.6 minutes per day viewing adult content online. According to comScore Networks – a company that measures internet use – 71.9 million people visited adult websites in August 2005, viewing more than 15 billion pages between them.

Salvationist – 12th August 2006

I don't believe this behavior is acceptable, especially due to the fact that a lot of kids have access to this stuff. . .

At the same time we have to remember that while a lot of porn is rather disgusting, it is a business. . .

Is this business good or bad? That may be a good topic for further debate.
I, for one (because of my Christian values), don't participate in pornographic web sites. However, because I am a guy (and have certain basic instincts), when I see a good looking gal there will be certain thoughts that will pop into my head. . .

However, thoughts are just thoughts - acting on those thoughts are what gets us into trouble. . .

Men need to ask themselves a basic question in regards to this matter: Do I REALLY love this woman, or am I just looking for a good time? If the answer to the first part of that question is yes, then no one gets hurt. However, if the guy is thinking with the wrong "head," then the woman is usually the one who ends up being taken advantage of.

So, that's what I mean when I say that female objectification is good up to a certain point - as long as we are not taking advantage of women to satisfy our own barbaric instinct.

Maybe we should ask the women what they think of this matter. . . after all, us guys are not in their shoes. . .

Quote:

'Female Chauvinist Pigs': Girls Gone Wild

By JENNIFER EGAN
Published: September 18, 2005
Reading "Female Chauvinist Pigs," Ariel Levy's lively polemic, gave me an epiphany of sorts. Finally, a coherent interpretation of an array of phenomena I'd puzzled over in recent years: the way Paris Hilton's leaked sex tapes seemed only to enhance her career; the horrifying popularity of vaginoplasty, a surgical procedure designed to make female genitalia more sightly; and a spate of mainstream books about stripping and other sex work, some reviewed in these pages. Levy has a theory that makes sense of all this. Our popular culture, she argues, has embraced a model of female sexuality that comes straight from pornography and strip clubs, in which the woman's job is to excite and titillate - to perform for men. According to Levy, women have bought into this by altering their bodies surgically and cosmetically, and - more insidiously - by confusing sexual power with power, so that embracing this caricaturish form of sexuality becomes, in their minds, a perverse kind of feminism.

Lou Beach

FEMALE CHAUVINIST PIGS
Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture.
By Ariel Levy.
224 pp. The Free Press. $25.

First Chapter: 'Female Chauvinist Pigs' (September 18, 2005)

Forum: Book News and Reviews

Levy's evidence is unsettling: that a number of female Olympic athletes saw fit to pose nude for Playboy before the 2004 games in Athens, for instance, or that Crunch gyms in several American cities offer "Cardio Striptease" classes, where women work out in bras and thongs. Much of the reporting is Levy's own (she writes for New York magazine), and her forays into a "Girls Gone Wild" shoot, several parties hosted by the neo-feminist group Cake, the lesbian subculture of New York and San Francisco, and the private lives of sexually active teenagers make for smart, acerbic reading. She finds a similar geometry in all of the worlds she visits. Women are preoccupied with a "girly-girl" aesthetic originating with strippers and porn stars, but they tend to view these images from a crude, objectifying perspective that has traditionally been male. In the lesbian communities she visits, "bois," many of whom have had "top surgery" to remove their breasts, say things like, "Some of these chicks, it's like you top them once and then they're all up in your face." A female publishing executive boasts of having the largest example of male anatomy in her office. At the Cake parties, promoted by their organizers as "feminism in action," female audience members coolly assess the breast size of women simulating sex onstage.
Levy makes her most daring leap when she likens this reductive female sexuality and its correlative chauvinism to the coping strategies of two of the black characters
in Harriet Beecher Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin": Tom, who tries to fulfill his oppressors' every expectation, and George Harris, who is light-skinned enough to pass for white. In both cases, she writes, a subordinate group embraces stereotypes as a way to gain the dominant group's acceptance. A Female Chauvinist Pig deals with her femaleness by "either acting like a cartoon man - who drools over strippers . . . - or acting like a cartoon woman, who has big cartoon breasts, wears little cartoon outfits and can only express her sexuality by spinning around a pole."
Levy's argument is provocative - and persuasive - as far as it goes. But how far is that? She writes only about people and incidents that illustrate her theory; she doesn't discuss a single pop star or public figure who has escaped the reductive dichotomy of female behavior she describes. Madonna, for example, is mentioned only in passing - a damaging omission, given that she mesmerized a generation of young women by combining girly female sexiness with unmistakable sexual and real-world power. In writing about teenagers, Levy describes an alarming world in which young girls routinely lap dance for boys at school dances, perform oral sex on them without reciprocation and make out with each other in front of them, all for the ego boost of male excitement and the notoriety that follows. Levy says she spoke with 50 young people between the ages of 12 and 18, some of whom she quotes, but she doesn't explain how she arrived at this sample or how representative it is of American culture as a whole. Similarly, in the final pages she speaks at length with three sexually aggressive adult women whose descriptions of sex "sounded less than smoldering," and uses them to bolster her argument that female sexual desire is being ignored. Fair enough, but these are three people. Surely Levy must have encountered a few sexually aggressive women who did enjoy sex, but she doesn't mention them, and the anecdotal one-sidedness of her reporting hurts her argument.
Still, as a consciousness-raising call to arms, "Female Chauvinist Pigs" is clearly to the good. And it raises a question that reaches far beyond the faddish popularity of the sex industry. Levy never mentions John Berger, but at times her book strongly echoes his "Ways of Seeing." Berger wrote: "Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at. . . . The surveyor of woman in herself is male: the surveyed female. Thus she turns herself into an object." "Ways of Seeing" was published in 1972, and Berger's theory of female objectification hinged on women's historical lack of real-world power or independence: "Men survey women before treating them. Consequently how a woman appears to a man can determine how she will be treated." But things have changed a lot since 1972. Many women can buy their own plane tickets and pay their own rent. They can treat themselves. Why, then, do they persist in watching themselves through male eyes?"
Jennifer Egan's new novel, "The Keep," will be published next year

KnightOfSappho · 03-19-2007, 06:33 PM

If I may...
Objectification is a mode of thought, whether it be male, female racial or otherwise.

Certainly one can argue that when the body is displayed for sake of displaying (or sexual interest) that this is objectification. This is a social construct and really applies to the general mode of THINKING of the people rather than to the expression itself.

The American culture veiws (generally) the woman's body as something that needs to be (should be) hidden. Therefore a revealing is something that is forbidden, stripping the model of humanity. The appreciation of beauty is lost because of the 'naughty' aspect.

That said...

The use of the human body to advertise something that is of NO relation to the subject IS an abuse and an objectification. The attempt to make one focus on the body form and link it to sex is the problem. This would not likely exist IF is were not for the 'naughty' factor.

Thoughts?

Jefferson · 03-24-2007, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnightOfSappho

If I may...
Objectification is a mode of thought, whether it be male, female racial or otherwise.

Certainly one can argue that when the body is displayed for sake of displaying (or sexual interest) that this is objectification. This is a social construct and really applies to the general mode of THINKING of the people rather than to the expression itself.

The American culture veiws (generally) the woman's body as something that needs to be (should be) hidden. Therefore a revealing is something that is forbidden, stripping the model of humanity. The appreciation of beauty is lost because of the 'naughty' aspect.

That said...

The use of the human body to advertise something that is of NO relation to the subject IS an abuse and an objectification. The attempt to make one focus on the body form and link it to sex is the problem. This would not likely exist IF is were not for the 'naughty' factor.

Thoughts?

Men are stimulated by what we SEE. And other than the "loud and proud 1%" there are few things more stimulating to see than the female body.

For this reason, "sex sells." It always has, and it always will.

It escapes me WHY there are girls/women who are willing to engage in pornographic acts, but there are those who are. I guess the need for money, drugs and/or attention is a powerful force.

hkbajwa · 03-28-2007, 06:30 AM

Well i once read about an interesting anthropological study regarding women's objectification and some interesting aspects were highlighted in it.

When mankind was still wandering about as hunter gatherers, women could not be objectified. They were the other side of the social coin. Men were out and about hunting and protecting the tribe while the women made sure that things continued to run smoothly at the homestead, looked after the young and old, healed the sick, made the clothes.. Essentially took care of all the logistics involved in maintaining the structure of a tribe.

The structure of that era did not allow for objectification simply because women performed the other half of the jobs required for the maintenance of a tribe.

It was not until mankind became an agriculturalist that women started becoming objectified. Prior to the time that man owned LAND, he owned nothing other than what he carried with him. Everything was communal (though shares were distributed according to the accepted pecking order.

Agriculture brought about ownership of Land. with that followed livestock and "real estate". He no longer moved about.

When owning land became the source of power for mankind, suddenly continued ownership of that land by one's brood became the goal of a man's life, and not the survival of his young int he context of a communal tribal system.

That meant that he had to keep a tight control on who his souse mated (to ensure that the land went only to HIS children. It was this need to control the reproductive cycle of womankind that eventually led to her being termed as another object that he "owned". This is turn led to continued reduction of their rights through the ages.

gotta run do my show now.. will get back and write more

chrisg967 · 03-31-2007, 01:32 PM

Interesting. Makes me wonder when/if objectification happened in the various Native American tribes....

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode