6 Things We Lose From Objectifying Women (and Men)

[BainsBane]

Last edited Wed Apr 16, 2014, 11:51 PM - Edit history (1)

One of the more irritating things I see is that seemingly sentient beings continue to conflate opposition to objectification with not liking sex. In the past I have expressed bewilderment that some have such trouble distinguishing the output of capitalist media from their own sex lives. Who besides John Legend and their other SOs are having sex with the SI cover models? No one on DU, and even John isn't having sex with the magazine image. He has sex with his partner, a real life breathing woman, Chrissy Teigen, not her retouched image as sold by Time Warner. In fact, there is a pretty good chance if you're spending a lot of time looking at girly mags and watching porn, you're probably not having much sex. Aside from the bizarre discontent in the poor folks who can't tell if they are actually touching another human being or looking at two dimensional images, objectification carries other downsides, as author Neal Samudre observes.

One of the worst fears I have for my future children is that they will grow up in a culture where beauty has a shallow definition. Today, we seem so at peace as we continue to objectify women (and men to a lesser degree) on a daily basis. I'm terrified this culture will continue for my children, and one day they'll dishonor the beautiful people around them, just because they're not dancing naked in front of them.

I don't want my future children to grow up like this. I don't believe any of us do. So why don't we stop it in its tracks today?

Maybe the reason sexual objectification still occurs today is because we're not thinking of the cost we'll have to pay for it tomorrow.

It's difficult to think about tomorrow, but if we go through life with blinders towards the repercussions of our current actions, we'll only taint our future culture.

So, I'm doing something new every time I encounter sexual objectification in mainstream music videos, commercials or advertisements. Instead of writing off the objectification of women and men, I think about everything we have to lose from perpetuating this culture

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/neal-samudre/6-things-we-lose-from-objectifying-women_b_4886980.html

On his list:

1. Good Art

2. Sensitivity to Beauty

Sometimes, I believe we are numb to what true beauty is. It's not being looked at and craved after for only a moment; it's seeing the heart and essence of a person draped in their natural wonder.

If we continue to objectify women and men, we'll lose our ability to recognize true beauty when we see it.

3. Rational Reasoning
4. Realistic Expectations
5. Respect
6. A Culture of Freedom

We pride ourselves on being a country of complete freedom when ironically, that freedom is mocked in our own advertising. We oddly perpetuate a culture where equality is subtly stepped on by how we picture men and women

.

The idea that freedom is linked to capitalist commerce in images of female bodies strikes me as having a great deal in common with the notion that money equals freedom of speech. How can people who denounce the link between money and freedom in political speech insist their own freedom is bound up in the profits generated by capitalist media culture that reduces the human body to profit-based commodities, at the expense of the real freedom that comes from equality and respect for our fellow citizens, regardless of gender? You aren't arguing for your own freedom is defending media images of women. Instead, you arguing on behalf of the profits of media conglomerates like Time Warner, News Corp, and other multinational corporations that depend on objectified images to amass hundreds of billions of dollars of profit over the rights of your fellow citizens and women in particular. In so doing, you feed into the notion that money equals free speech.

[niyad]

1. bookmarking to read later, with thanks.

[BainsBane]

8. Thanks

Hope you're doing well, Niyad. PM me if you want to hear something funny.

[seabeyond]

2. On my way to bed. Check it out in the morning. Looks interesting

And thought provoking

[BainsBane]

11. A man's take on the issue

so it gives a somewhat different perspective.

[hrmjustin]

3. K&R!

[Ohio Joe]

4. K&R - nt

[BainsBane]

5. Thanks, Joe!

[Agschmid]

6. Well worth the read.

[BainsBane]

7. A counterpoint to the Mad Men view of the sexes

that some seem so invested in perpetuating.

Additionally, when people continue to present such arguments as being anti-sex or some prudish opposition to naked bodies after all the discussion we've had on DU (including the video by sex positive Laci Green) they show themselves to be either intellectually dishonest or just plain stupid. They appear to lack the capacity to engage with the actual arguments, so instead reduce them to their own level and show that their complete disrespect and contempt for the hundreds of members of this site who have said they see objectification as creating a hostile climate for women (just as Civil Rights law has upheld in public spaces for three decades).

[boston bean]

18. Someone alerted portraying your post as lying and insulting to members here. It got left 7-0.

[BainsBane]

25. Interesting, thanks

It certainly couldn't be interpreted as lying.

[Warren DeMontague]

72. A silly alert? On DU?

Wow, how often does that happen?!?

[hfojvt]

9. you seem to be missing a very basic point

it's so obvious I am not sure a person should bother trying to explain that to you.

[BainsBane]

10. Another read my mind post

What joy! Thanks for kicking the thread.

[seabeyond]

17. man. and i wanted to be told the obvious. and i know he is not shy. maybe he will tell

us today.

my guess is we are all animals and sex and yada yada yada.

you?

[hfojvt]

23. nope

I am not shy, but I do get tired of sharing just so I can be spit on and used as a pinyata.

I get enough of that at work.

[seabeyond]

24. i have never, and will never spit on a human being. firstly... eeeew.

second, i have not mastered the art of spitting cause i do not spit, so probably would be all that in awesome, whatever that would be

and lastly

it is mean

[hfojvt]

26. really?

Because it kinda looked like with post #17 that you were publicly making fun of me, mocking me, yada, yada.

Of course, one cannot literally spit over the intertubes, but the Oxford desk dictionary helpfully defines it 1b. "do this as a sign of hatred or contempt"

Naturally, my own first post in the thread was not all that nice either, but what can I say. I think something foolish was said in the OP, and I said so, although I do not care to explain WHY I think it was foolish. I might even say that it wasn't very nice.

If one cares to be challenged they can read it again, and think "what was said here that Elephant man might find cruel if he was reading this post?"

[BainsBane]

28. Seriously?

Guessing what's behind your Kreskin post is mean? I don't think so.

As for me, I figure if you can't be bothered to tell us what it is, it can't be wroth thinking about.

[seabeyond]

29. no. that would be me curious what your obvious answer is. and a history reading your posts,

knowing you are not shy. and a stab at what you think obviously is....

but whatever.

yet, twice saying i am spitting certainly is not a fact.

[hfojvt]

37. I said it seemed mocking

further that I would be spit on, does not mean that YOU would be one of the spitters. Say the "wrong" thing, open yourself up here, and you can get swarms of detractors taking a shot at you.

Not being shy, I have waded into some ambushes.

And

"man"
"he's not shy"
"yada, yada, yada"

seemed mocking to me. Like your guess was on the order of "he's probably gonna babble on and on (yada yada) about something stupid like ..."

But perhaps I am over-sensitive.

If you were curious though, then why not ask me, instead of talking about me with somebody else?

To me, if you are curious, the obvious thing is THIS from the OP.

"you're probably not having much sex."

That happens to be true.

And like I always say, especially to my baby sister - the truth hurts.

[seabeyond]

38. ok. whatever. i am off to get some lunch

[BainsBane]

43. yes, you are over sensitive

Anyone who takes an unpopular position is subject to being disagreed with. It happens to me most days here, yet I have never described those who disagree with me as a swarm because I don't see people as insects.

[Warren DeMontague]

53. I'm stupid AND I'm not having much sex, I guess!

Damn, you sure got MY number!

[BainsBane]

62. I suggested a couple of options

There must be some reason for people to consistently misrepresent arguments about sexual objectification as being anti-sex. If there is an explanation I haven't thought of, feel free to share it.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. Nah, I'm just gonna sit here and try to recover from your supremely executed burn.

I like totally "need unguent", it was that spot on!





Luckily, I think I'll survive. It may be tough, but, i'm hanging on.

[BainsBane]

65. Thanks for the compliment

The score is still Warren 48 to Bains 1, but I do appreciate the recognition.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. Sigh. Once upon a time, I was quite popular with the ladies, I'll have you know...

it was all great, until I ate that tuberculosis-tainted meat from the tourist area garbage dump.

[BainsBane]

73. Oh, I expect you're sitll popular

I still like you, even when I get mad at you. Of course you may feel quite differently, which is your right.

[Warren DeMontague]

75. Ahhh! My achilles heel, of course... my massively outsized ego!

Well, we all have our weaknesses, I guess.

Nah, like the song says, aint no time to hate. Barely time to wait.

I meant it when I said there are just aspects of this place I've stopped taking all that seriously, or am trying to... for my blood pressure, if nothing else--- but I'm here because I'm a lifelong Democrat, and that part is non-negotiable.

As such I know we are on the same side, disagreements and all.

[Violet_Crumble]

79. I used to like you until you posted an Indigo Girls clip...

All bets are off now!

[BainsBane]

81. Nothing can compare to the horror

of seeing Barry Manilow lauded in the Lounge.

?6a135f

[Violet_Crumble]

83. I agree. An icon of such cultural importance is wasted in the Lounge...

I never go in there, and all this time I've been wandering forlornly round GD asking myself if anyone else but me stays awake at night pondering the question of whether 'Copacabana' or 'Mandy' is the most important song of the 1970's. All this time they've probably been discussing that important question in the Lounge.

This is my present for GD. BARRY RULES!!

&feature=player_detailpage&list=RDOYEbj__ioIk

[BainsBane]

84. Tell me you're joking

Please.

[Violet_Crumble]

85. I joke!

Of course I don't stay awake all night pondering that question. I usually fall asleep about 3am from all the tossing and turning that comes from all the pondering...

Time for a bit of tangential self promotion for a thread I started in another group. I would have included Barry on this list, but unfortunately his two greatest classics were on two separate albums, and I would have had to ditch The Pixies to make way for him. I love Barry, but not that much!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10341407

[BainsBane]

86. Tough question

I supposed I'd include Dark Side of the Moon in there somewhere. Definitely Horses, Patti Smith.

BTW, I went to college with Bob Mould. We used to hang out some do to a mutual friend.

[Warren DeMontague]

88. Minneapolis had a good music scene, in the 80s, indeed.

...course I always felt the Replacements were sightly overrated by my indie rock obsessed college friends. But I'm done with those arguments, too

[Violet_Crumble]

89. My list changes depending on the mood I'm in...

That's pretty cool about Bob Mould. I've been a huge fangrrl since I first heard Husker Du back in the 80's

[Warren DeMontague]

87. But they're covering THE DEAD!

I like this cover even better, though

[Squinch]

27. He is rubber, you are glue. Nyah.

Last edited Thu Apr 17, 2014, 01:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Is it ever polite to say, "Oh, shut up, will you?" to some of these guys? Can I say that under some circumstances?

[randome]

12. Although the overall points are valid...

...objectification of both women and men has been part of human nature for thousands of years. We can always use reminders of that from time to time but I don't share the author's fear for 'future children'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[BainsBane]

13. No, I disagree that it is human nature

I see it as a product of capitalist media culture. Human sexuality and lust has been part of human nature for centuries, but that is not the same a sexual objectification and certainly not on the level that mass media perpetrates and profits from today.

My own concerns are more for the present as the future. I hold out optimism that it will diminish as awareness increases and advertisers and media conglomerates find it less profitable.

[randome]

16. You're right, I meant 'human society', not 'nature'

But I don't see that it will diminish so long as someone, somewhere can make a buck out of it. And once someone makes a buck out of it, others jump on the bandwagon.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[deutsey]

22. I think you're both right

IMO marketers (at least since Bernays) have no problems mining the depths of our "lizard brain" for profit with no care at all about how that plays out in our society.

[CFLDem]

14. It is sickening how all this objectification

is causing people to lose touch with reality.

I think he is spot on about objectification being yet another plague brought upon us by our corporate overlords.

It really is insidious how we've allowed it to permeate every facet of our culture.

[BainsBane]

15. Our corporate overlords

That's exactly right, and that is what distinguishes it from natural desire, lust, and sexuality--all of which are part of healthy human sexuality.

[seaglass]

19. Are you enjoying yourself? n/t

[seabeyond]

20. ....

other than making it clear the obvious in hof, i really kinda just see it as further support in each and everyone of these threads.... in enthusiasm. people do not know the mocking like we do. they only see the support of what is being said.

so i am sitting in a meh... go for it dude and in anticipation looking for the next creative explosion of support post.

[CFLDem]

21. I am enjoying my education, yes.

I only wish I had started it earlier.

[Warren DeMontague]

74. wash Uffizi drive me to Firenze

[snooper2]

30. does this count?

[Squinch]

42. As an example of the kind of art we have lost, yes.

Look at the difference between her and the recently argued-over Sports Illustrated cover.

She is a depiction of a person. She is in a natural pose. The eye is drawn to her expression. She is not offering any part of her body to the viewer in an unnatural way.

Very different. And very beautiful. Where is that from?

ETA the way she's holding her hands is really interesting. It looks like her fists are clenched. I wonder if that is significant.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. offering the body "in an unnatural way"

you mean.... like this?







How, exactly, are those "unnatural" poses any different than the 2014 SI cover, other than the age and the medium?

[rrneck]

31. This image is an abstraction:

1969
Richard Estes, The Candy Store, 1969
Oil and synthetic polymer on canvas, 47 3/4 × 68 3/4 in. (121.3 × 174.6 cm).
Whitney Museum of American Art, New York

It's not real. The formal elements of the work were chosen for a desired effect. Since it is an abstraction of what we may like to see in the world around us is manipulated by the hand of the artist it is a fiction, not reality. Any image, whether it is a painting or a photograph is an abstraction, thus fictional.

Fiction should not, and in fact cannot, be regulated. So the idea that fictionalized images of women, candy shops, or anything else in the world should be controlled is anathema to freedom of expression.

This image is an abstraction as well:



It is a hopelessly idealized image of a living space designed to appeal to a particular demographic. Average everyday people don't really live like this any more than average everyday people have sex with super models. At issue is not the content of the media, but the visual literacy of the viewer. Of course that problem can't be solved by telling people what not to think or feel, but by giving them something better to think about and a reason to have the right feelings. That means that all those culture warriors out there kvetching about decadent cultural artifacts should get busy making something better to replace them rather than simply complaining about something that offends their personal sensibilities.

Money is not speech, but it is real. The question to ask is how did the corrupters of the political process get the money. They got it by selling fantasy to people, and different people buy different fantasies. Glass houses are everywhere and they are always beautifully decorated and spotlessly clean.

[seaglass]

32. Candy, nuts, glass houses, women - which of these does not belong? n/t

[rrneck]

33. I don't understand.

Are you opposed to images of women in the media?

[seaglass]

34. Nope. Nor am I trying to outlaw images of women in the media. Do you notice anything

in this list that might be unlike the others: candy, nuts, glass houses and women?

[rrneck]

35. If they're images they're all the same. They are all objects.

I see no reason to anthropomorphize an image of a woman because of it's subject matter. All images are objects.

They are abstractions from life and should be treated as such.

[BainsBane]

36. Have you raised that argument in the men's group?

It would be interesting to know their take on it.

[rrneck]

39. No.

You're welcome to though. I don't have a copyright on it.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

47. Someone decided you're not allowed to talk about that

Absolute fucking bullshit.

[rrneck]

48. Heh. Yep. Bad hides happen.

And there was nothing confrontational at all about it. Not only that, BB asked me to post it over there. Some days you just can't win.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. And that was a really bad hide...

I'm not even sure what possible reason anyone could use to alert on it

[rrneck]

50. Alerters comments...

I don't think having others post for you is what DU's new time outs are for. This is obviously just trying to stir some shit up with History of Feminism group or at least one of their members. Divisive and inappropriate.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. Thanks for posting that. Pity the jury didn't read this sub-thread first n/t

[pintobean]

54. It really makes one wonder

I've had posts hidden where the alerter flat out lied. I can understand jurors just accepting the alerter's comments. I don't approve of that, but it happens. I can't see how the alerter made the mistake, though. I came here from that thread.
I alerted on my automated message and explained it to admin. I would suggest you do the same. It won't undo the hide, but they can see if there's a pattern with the alerter.

[Violet_Crumble]

56. That was definitely a malicious alert...

It's alerts like that one that make me careful when I'm on a jury to read what's happening in any links in the alerted post and to confirm that the alerter isn't misrepresenting what's happening.

[pintobean]

57. Do you remember what happened to rug?

I'm pretty sure it was rug. He hot-linked to a pic in Liconisax's (something like that) photobucket. That person switched the image to something graphic and alerted on rug's post. It got hidden and rug took it to Meta. The member got PPRed for it.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. Yeah, I remember that.

Cheap. And, admin did not take kindly to it.

[Violet_Crumble]

59. Yeah, I remember that...

I think the person who set up rug was called Laconicsax. What they did really sucked...

[pintobean]

63. Yup, that was the name. EarlG's PPR reason

laconicsax deliberately caused a graphic shock-content image to appear on Democratic Underground, which is a clear violation of our Terms of Service. This violation was made even worse by the fact that it was done maliciously -- laconicsax caused the image to appear in another member's post, then alerted on the post himself (even including the words "shock content" in the alert message) in an effort to have that member blocked out of the discussion.

Jun 27, 2012

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=118400&sub=trans

[Warren DeMontague]

60. Even if that OP had occurred in a vacuum, i have trouble envisioning why it would be hide-worthy.

It would be interesting to see the text of the alert.

[Warren DeMontague]

55. Yeah, that's pretty lame.

Not surprising for this place, though, and what passes for hobbies around here.

[BainsBane]

71. This is a strange alert message

1) I'm sorry this happened to you. 2) I'm wondering if the alerter might have been someone who didn't want any influence of me in that group? I guess I thought you would just post the question. My point wasn't to have them repeat the same old stuff about "objectification being junk" but respond to your point that all two dimensional images are objects. They insist they are not. They imagine those two dimensional images to be very real and in fact some conflate them with their own sex lives. That really is the danger, that there is some weird disconnect where that becomes how men view women.

Please understand I'm not arguing that images be regulated. Rather, I'm making an argument for why progressives shouldn't buy into and so zealously defend mass media marketing of human bodies as commodities. I think you are right that it is not unlike the images of candy or the apartment, But human beings are not things and should not be viewed as such. When one starts to see women (or men) as like candy or furniture because that is how the corporate media and advertisers present them in order to generate profits, that's a problem.

[BainsBane]

68. Your post over there was hidden? Why?

[rrneck]

41. It's posted.

But be warned, most of my OP's sink like a stone.

[BainsBane]

44. sorry but I can't participate

I am officially persona non grata there, what with being an evil feminist and all.

[rrneck]

45. Sorry about that.

You're not evil. Maybe a little mischievous, but not evil.

But you can post here. Care to comment?

[BainsBane]

46. I Will when I get home

I am on my phone now so it's hard to navigate.

[The Straight Story]

40. Candy

Cause they make it look so good in the ads but it often tastes like crap.

After watching tv ads I was certain all candy looked and tasted like reese's cups.

I once saw a peanut butter cup with holes in it and so I was sure they all then had holes from vampires.

It is similar to those ladies on that SI cover. I went to the store to get some smokes for my pitbull and some shotgun shells and I was utterly shocked when I noticed that the women in the store didn't look like that. I mean, I am not the smartest guy in my straight white privileged club at the all male all white country club I attend but I sure know that if I see a woman in a magazine or on tv that all women best look like that or I am being deceived.

I am just glad women all think I look like that guy from wolverine (or sam/dean from supernatural, loki or thor, etc). They have to believe that all men look just like they do on tv, what smart person wouldn't?

Although I do remember watching Fat Albert as a kid and believe you me that was deceptive. So the moral is - try to get out into the world (stores, jobs, beaches, parks) and you come to find out that there is a really a diversity in how people look. I know most people don't know it (or at least they seem to not to) but wow, it was eye opening for me when I learned the truth.

And you can imagine my shock as a young teen who read a lot of comics when I found out there were no avengers or legion of superheros. I swore when I grew up I would only love, care for, and marry a superhero. I was crushed.

Now I am off to watch honey boo-boo because the people look real on there and are a great representation of our country.

[AverageJoe90]

61. Some interesting points are made here.

Last edited Thu Apr 17, 2014, 09:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Indeed, there's nothing wrong with enjoying sex, or enjoying looking at people who you find attractive. It's the person's character that counts.

[Warren DeMontague]

66. Whoa

I dont know what that is, but it makes perfect sense.

[BainsBane]

67. That could be your next post on the subject

It would make more sense than the usual.

[Warren DeMontague]

70. Nah, now you're trying too hard

it works better whern you charhhgrraaahrfr rangnggrhhrh shhryueeerhhggghhuggoth

[AverageJoe90]

77. LOL. Do keep in mind that wasn't intentional, though(explanation is in the other reply). nt

[BainsBane]

78. Sorry, I keep forgetting to play hard to get

I'll do better next time.

[AverageJoe90]

76. Oops! Sorry I didn't correct that. =O

That was a *major* typo that was caused by Opera(on Ubuntu 13.10, btw)suddenly deciding to act really, really weird and I never could get around to fixing it then. I'll try to remedy that soon, though.

[JEFF9K]

80. This kind of political correctness is helpful - to conservatives!!!

[Squinch]

90. So liberals benefit when we objectify people? Fascinating. How so?

[JEFF9K]

91. Bad logic. Really bad.

[hunter]

82. I see a future where people who like to objectify others...

... are so busy boinking their robot housekeepers and robot office staff that they never reproduce.

Contrary to what the Space Pope says, this would be a good thing.