The Objectification Of Women
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... f-women/p1
I don't understand women all that well. I see women railing against their objectification by men and yet the choices they make in their clothing suggests they wish to be treated as such. — TheMadFool
I don't claim to understand women, or men for that matter, in terms of inherently irrational sexual relations. But your question seems to be confusing Political objectification with Sexual objectification. Young girls quickly learn, by observation or via the grapevine, what boys are looking for in girls. And what they discover is that boys tend to be analytical about casual sex. By that I mean they typically focus on body parts instead of the whole person. So the girls are merely being pragmatic when they emphasize their best features to make themselves attractive --- meanwhile hoping that their personality will seal the deal for a long term and loving relationship.
A beautiful and successful actress on a talk show was asked about the long slit in her ankle length skirt. And she matter-of-factly answered that she was not well-endowed up top, so she decided to "show some leg" --- to put her best foot forward, so to speak. She didn't seem to object to being Sexually objectified by the "male gaze" of the audience. More recently, a beautiful actress in a skit was analyzing herself in the mirror --- as she wondered why she couldn't hold on to a man. The sensible & practical alter ego in the mirror suggested a boob job. And the skit was written by the flat-chested actress!
However, I suspect that these modern women would not appreciate being Politically objectified as a sex-toy to be used and thrown away, or stored in a closet. Unfortunately, women throughout history have been both Sexually and Politically objectified. In early civilizations, they were basically marketed as a man's "help meet", or as sex slaves, and their value was often judged like a commodity, a camel or a goat, rather than as a partner in a life-long relationship. This interpersonal inequity all too often resulted in abuse or abandonment. So societies were forced to enact political laws of marriage to protect wives & children from spousal trashing. Unequal power/sex relations are common among animals, and seems to be inherent in human nature (dimorphism, psychology, etc). But humans can choose to modify their inherent urges & behaviors in the interest of social harmony.
As your "Burka" note suggested, some absolutist moralizing cultures even went to the extreme of banning all sexual "displays" by females, because they were viewed as temptresses, luring young men astray from sexual chastity. But this complete segregation of the sexes is unnatural, and may result in unsavory covert behavior on both sides. So, modern democratic societies, with egalitarian & romantic ideals, have tried to have their sex and chastity too, by "liberating" women, and trusting men to "keep it in their pants". That's like playing with matches around beautiful fireworks : high risk, high reward??? I'll leave it for you to decide how well that combination of sexual & political liberation is working.
Sex Differences : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans
Chastity : the ability to resist temptation
Help Mate : a subordinate household worker and associate.
Extreme-Sexy-Costumes-Free-Shipping-New-Sexy-Burka-Costume-3S1208-Halloween-Ninja-Costumes-For-Women.jpg_640x640.jpg
Objectification
Re: Objectification
I don’t think it’s helpful to distinguish between sexual and political objectification. All that does is permit objectification in sexual relations. Just because a girl changes her aesthetics to direct your effort and attention towards her, it does not follow that she consents to ‘sexual’ objectification - which is valuing a sexual being only as an object to the exclusion of agency. So sexual objectification IS political. — Possibility
Helpful? That depends on what question you're seeking help with. The OP seemed to be questioning the implicit hypocrisy of a 21st century liberated woman, who overtly directs the attention of her male oppressors to her distinguishing female sexual charms --- objectifying them as-if they are attractive shiny objects like jewelry. They draw attention to their lips with artificial color, mimicking the bright red bottoms of sexually receptive chimpanzees. If they have ample bosoms, they may display them with uplift brassieres or decolletage. Or if they have “hot legs” they may showcase them with short skirts or long slits. The OP assumption seemed to be that true political Feminists would dress like Lesbians, forcing the males to deal with them as equals & agents & subjects.
I'm aware that you have an aversion to making philosophical distinctions in general, but I don't. So, I'll try to distinguish between two legitimate categories of human interaction : natural sexual behavior, and cultural power hierarchies. Obviously, the two are inter-related in practice. Male mammals (e.g. chimps) typically dominate the females in their tribes, both sexually and politically. Bonobos are a rare exception, due in-part to less sexual dimorphism. In my prior post though, I accused the OP of failing to distinguish between sexual and cultural objectification. The innate tendency for males to focus on the distinguishing body parts of females, rather than the person as a political agent, would never have become such a hot-button political issue, if humans had never developed a rationalized culture. Reason is analytical, not holistic, but it is motivated by feelings. So modern cultures are all about rationalizing social distinctions : sex, race, religion. Cultures can permit certain behaviors, but they can also prohibit those that are deemed harmful to society. In any case, females, as a class, have been second class citizens since the era of hunter-gatherers. Guess who got the dangerous-but-glorified jobs of warriors and hunters, while their “better halves” stayed home with babies on their hips, and cooked dinner?
Do you think Sex and Politics are functionally the same thing? That seems to be the view of 20th century Feminists. And their homogenized position was understandable, because they were primarily motivated by political injustice for women, and blamed institutionalized male sexual dominance for the prevailing inequity in sex relations. Likewise, many African-Americans tend to lump-together all racial distinctions (e.g. profiling) into one category : political injustice via negative discrimination based on race. Unfortunately, that indiscriminate categorization ignores the majority of white people who treat non-whites with respect. It was mostly high class white people, who provoked a civil war between "brothers" to end an egregious form of dehumanizing discrimination. It was also white people in power, who mandated positive distinctions (affirmative action) to rectify past negative discrimination. And the Women's Lib marchers didn't win the Vote by a direct assault on male privilege, but by appealing to the moral conscience of the men who loved them.
At a high point in human moral history, the women's empowerment movement has succeeded, to a surprising degree, in effecting political reforms on issues such as reproductive rights, domestic violence, maternity leave, equal pay, women's suffrage, sexual harassment, and sexual violence. But, it has still not completely erased the innate differences that cause fertile females to be sexually attracted to fickle males, and to use their feminine charms and wiles to manipulate them into committing to long-term relationships. Ironically, it seems that the most sexually attractive males are also the “bad boys” (warriors) who are more likely to use and discard women as short-term sex toys. So, the “hypocrisy” implied by the OP, is merely the human foible of trying to conform to two different standards : natural sexual relations, and cultural political relations. Sexual objectification is only as political as you make it.
Perhaps the next political solution will require all women to conceal themselves in burkas and hijabs, in order to offset the aggressive dominating cave-man sexual behavior of those testosterone-fueled males. [ simply neutering the males would leave unwanted females in a quandary ] Or maybe, women will be required by law to carry pepper spray, or to learn martial arts for self-defense of their virtue. Or, if all else fails, a knee to the groin will usually politically neutralize unwanted advances.
vive la difference : used to show that you think it is good that there is a difference between two people or things, especially a difference between men and women
Helpful? That depends on what question you're seeking help with. The OP seemed to be questioning the implicit hypocrisy of a 21st century liberated woman, who overtly directs the attention of her male oppressors to her distinguishing female sexual charms --- objectifying them as-if they are attractive shiny objects like jewelry. They draw attention to their lips with artificial color, mimicking the bright red bottoms of sexually receptive chimpanzees. If they have ample bosoms, they may display them with uplift brassieres or decolletage. Or if they have “hot legs” they may showcase them with short skirts or long slits. The OP assumption seemed to be that true political Feminists would dress like Lesbians, forcing the males to deal with them as equals & agents & subjects.
I'm aware that you have an aversion to making philosophical distinctions in general, but I don't. So, I'll try to distinguish between two legitimate categories of human interaction : natural sexual behavior, and cultural power hierarchies. Obviously, the two are inter-related in practice. Male mammals (e.g. chimps) typically dominate the females in their tribes, both sexually and politically. Bonobos are a rare exception, due in-part to less sexual dimorphism. In my prior post though, I accused the OP of failing to distinguish between sexual and cultural objectification. The innate tendency for males to focus on the distinguishing body parts of females, rather than the person as a political agent, would never have become such a hot-button political issue, if humans had never developed a rationalized culture. Reason is analytical, not holistic, but it is motivated by feelings. So modern cultures are all about rationalizing social distinctions : sex, race, religion. Cultures can permit certain behaviors, but they can also prohibit those that are deemed harmful to society. In any case, females, as a class, have been second class citizens since the era of hunter-gatherers. Guess who got the dangerous-but-glorified jobs of warriors and hunters, while their “better halves” stayed home with babies on their hips, and cooked dinner?
Do you think Sex and Politics are functionally the same thing? That seems to be the view of 20th century Feminists. And their homogenized position was understandable, because they were primarily motivated by political injustice for women, and blamed institutionalized male sexual dominance for the prevailing inequity in sex relations. Likewise, many African-Americans tend to lump-together all racial distinctions (e.g. profiling) into one category : political injustice via negative discrimination based on race. Unfortunately, that indiscriminate categorization ignores the majority of white people who treat non-whites with respect. It was mostly high class white people, who provoked a civil war between "brothers" to end an egregious form of dehumanizing discrimination. It was also white people in power, who mandated positive distinctions (affirmative action) to rectify past negative discrimination. And the Women's Lib marchers didn't win the Vote by a direct assault on male privilege, but by appealing to the moral conscience of the men who loved them.
At a high point in human moral history, the women's empowerment movement has succeeded, to a surprising degree, in effecting political reforms on issues such as reproductive rights, domestic violence, maternity leave, equal pay, women's suffrage, sexual harassment, and sexual violence. But, it has still not completely erased the innate differences that cause fertile females to be sexually attracted to fickle males, and to use their feminine charms and wiles to manipulate them into committing to long-term relationships. Ironically, it seems that the most sexually attractive males are also the “bad boys” (warriors) who are more likely to use and discard women as short-term sex toys. So, the “hypocrisy” implied by the OP, is merely the human foible of trying to conform to two different standards : natural sexual relations, and cultural political relations. Sexual objectification is only as political as you make it.
Perhaps the next political solution will require all women to conceal themselves in burkas and hijabs, in order to offset the aggressive dominating cave-man sexual behavior of those testosterone-fueled males. [ simply neutering the males would leave unwanted females in a quandary ] Or maybe, women will be required by law to carry pepper spray, or to learn martial arts for self-defense of their virtue. Or, if all else fails, a knee to the groin will usually politically neutralize unwanted advances.
vive la difference : used to show that you think it is good that there is a difference between two people or things, especially a difference between men and women
Re: Objectification
The men would still be wrong to touch, harrasss proposition, leer, etc., the women in question. . . . The objectification is a separate action, taken by other, in response to the presence of a person. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Of course, male boorishness is Wrong by modern democratic egalitarian standards. That's why the 16th century notion of a "Gentleman" was invoked by upper-class nobles in order to distinguish their superior morality from the uncouth crudeness of the lower classes. Apparently, it was common among commoners for men to grope, and even rape, women without permission. But the nobility was (in theory) held to a higher moral standard. In public, they deferred to their lady's whims, and postponed sex until after marriage. Nowadays, we typically refer to even lower class women as "Ladies" to indicate that they are worthy of respect.
But women in urban ghettos live among politically & economically lower-class men who don't even pretend to be Gentlemen. They accept rough treatment by their "pimp-daddies", because women's lib hasn't yet reached the inner cities. They even refer to other women as "hoes", as a sign of their submission to dominant "thugs". By contrast, some uptown "gentlemen" in male-dominated offices, while outwardly professing nobility, are still motivated by their power-position to treat subordinate women as "objects" and "hoes" --- as long as the dominated women let them get away with it. The parties to such relationships presumably don't think in political or philosophical terms of "objectification", but in practical terms of "I'm horney", or "maybe I'll get a raise or a movie role". Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that "what is, is what ought to be"; but that what-ought-to-be is a never-ending quest for a moral Utopia.
Unfortunately, the gender-based consciousness-raising that began over a hundred years ago, still has a long uphill battle to change the thinking and behavior of both men and women. And a majority of people in the world remain un-enlightened by Western Christian or democratic or socialistic morality. Political Laws can enforce outward behavior, but changing hearts & minds is beyond the reach of politics. Even the Chosen People in the Old Testament were accused of all sorts of depravity and immorality. But after constant chastisement by hell-fire prophets, and enduring repeated severe punishment by their Chosen God, some elements of the masses persisted in their evil ways, up to this very day. So, yes, I make a meaningful distinction between ideal political ethics and practical popular morality.
Perhaps, in another thousand years, humanity will reach a higher general moral standard, as depicted in the egalitarian society of Star Trek. But even in that enlightened future age, the women still wear mini-skirt uniforms to differentiate the female from the male soldiers. Why? Could it be a vestigial remnant of old-fashioned Objectification?
Gentleman : a gentleman is any man of good and courteous conduct.
Thug : primarily male gang-members who flaunt their disdain for the laws and morals of polite society
Gentleman : an effeminate p*ssy-whipped white male
Thug vocabulary
PS___Internet Porn is accepted as morally socially "Wrong", even by those who enjoy "leering" at naked women. But, like illegal and immoral drugs, it is still a major money-maker in our society. Is it wrong to smoke pot? What are we going to do about it? Make war on drugs & sex, or make sure that violations from the moral norm do as little harm as possible? That's the political question.
Of course, male boorishness is Wrong by modern democratic egalitarian standards. That's why the 16th century notion of a "Gentleman" was invoked by upper-class nobles in order to distinguish their superior morality from the uncouth crudeness of the lower classes. Apparently, it was common among commoners for men to grope, and even rape, women without permission. But the nobility was (in theory) held to a higher moral standard. In public, they deferred to their lady's whims, and postponed sex until after marriage. Nowadays, we typically refer to even lower class women as "Ladies" to indicate that they are worthy of respect.
But women in urban ghettos live among politically & economically lower-class men who don't even pretend to be Gentlemen. They accept rough treatment by their "pimp-daddies", because women's lib hasn't yet reached the inner cities. They even refer to other women as "hoes", as a sign of their submission to dominant "thugs". By contrast, some uptown "gentlemen" in male-dominated offices, while outwardly professing nobility, are still motivated by their power-position to treat subordinate women as "objects" and "hoes" --- as long as the dominated women let them get away with it. The parties to such relationships presumably don't think in political or philosophical terms of "objectification", but in practical terms of "I'm horney", or "maybe I'll get a raise or a movie role". Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that "what is, is what ought to be"; but that what-ought-to-be is a never-ending quest for a moral Utopia.
Unfortunately, the gender-based consciousness-raising that began over a hundred years ago, still has a long uphill battle to change the thinking and behavior of both men and women. And a majority of people in the world remain un-enlightened by Western Christian or democratic or socialistic morality. Political Laws can enforce outward behavior, but changing hearts & minds is beyond the reach of politics. Even the Chosen People in the Old Testament were accused of all sorts of depravity and immorality. But after constant chastisement by hell-fire prophets, and enduring repeated severe punishment by their Chosen God, some elements of the masses persisted in their evil ways, up to this very day. So, yes, I make a meaningful distinction between ideal political ethics and practical popular morality.
Perhaps, in another thousand years, humanity will reach a higher general moral standard, as depicted in the egalitarian society of Star Trek. But even in that enlightened future age, the women still wear mini-skirt uniforms to differentiate the female from the male soldiers. Why? Could it be a vestigial remnant of old-fashioned Objectification?
Gentleman : a gentleman is any man of good and courteous conduct.
Thug : primarily male gang-members who flaunt their disdain for the laws and morals of polite society
Gentleman : an effeminate p*ssy-whipped white male
Thug vocabulary
PS___Internet Porn is accepted as morally socially "Wrong", even by those who enjoy "leering" at naked women. But, like illegal and immoral drugs, it is still a major money-maker in our society. Is it wrong to smoke pot? What are we going to do about it? Make war on drugs & sex, or make sure that violations from the moral norm do as little harm as possible? That's the political question.
Re: Objectification
Wanting attention is not the same as wanting sexual attention, and wanting sexual attention is not the same as wanting to be objectified. — Possibility
The males and females in this thread seem to have different feelings about Objectification. For men, it's intended as a complement. A wolf-whistle is a rude & crude way of complimenting an attractive woman on her sex appeal. And some self-confident women seem to accept such boorish behavior as a positive ego-boosting comment. But for many women, objectification by an unknown male could be perceived as an implicit threat, or a sign of dominance. The "helpful" distinction you make in your post is exactly the same as the one in my first post : Sexual versus Political objectification.
The history of that instinctive gender distinction is clear : in most cultures, unattached women (unmarried or without children) have all-too-often been considered "fair game" by predatory males. Women have been raped and otherwise abused, when they had no husbands or family to protect them. That's why rape, by conquering armies, has been so common. Most "nice young men", in their own society, would not think of raping a woman. But the anonymity of war, and the absence of male protectors, allows them to commit unconscionable acts of violence ("booty", in ancient times; "war crimes", in enlightened modern political parlance).
The Sociobiology explanation for such "antisocial" behavior is that sexual aggression & political competitiveness are innate to the male genetic inheritance. That amoral scientific assessment was unfairly criticized for dismissing overt male dominance as merely a case of "boys will be boys". A Biblcal explanation is that all such "evil" tendencies are an inheritance from the "fall" of Adam & Eve. A self-serving interpretation of innate evil is that a raped woman got what she deserved. But Continental and Postmodern philosophers typically deny the notions of Human Nature and Original Sin. Instead, they blame most of the evils of the world on Human Culture, with the implication that an inclusive Socialist government could rectify the errors of previous male-dominant Capitalist political systems. Unfortunately, we have only a few examples (e.g. Sweden) of such egalitarian societies.
The June 2020 issue of National Geographic magazine has an article on the sad state of women in politics. In a Democracy Index table of of male/female representation in government, the United States was merely average, and Sweden was judged most gender democratic. Ironically, the former socialist republic of Russia lagged far behind. Moreover, even when quotas for women in politics are mandated by law, as in Afghanistan, the women are still dominated by men, and dismissed by women. One female Aghani parliamentarian lamented : "the problem was that the main decision-makers in this society are men, not women; even if we become politicians, the first and last word is said by a man".
So, it seems that the ideal of an egalitarian society, where women are respected as "agents" rather than used as "objects", remains a future fantasy. On the brighter side though, we can take some comfort from the documented fact*1 that humanity has made measurable moral progress, including Women's Rights, over recent centuries. Compared to Old Testament times, women have made gains in agency, but still have a long climb ahead to penetrate the "glass ceiling". That may be why the male posters don't see Sexual Objectification as a major problem for modern liberated women, compared with their long history of abuse & misuse.
Sex & Aggression : Humans follow gender‐specific sexual strategies, display aggressive behavior, and respond to physical pain as do other animals. Yet human beings have the intellectual ability to express these tendencies uniquely in either destructive or constructive ways. The human being, unlike any other animal, must reckon with sexual ethics, the problem of violence, and the meaning of suffering.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... 2385.00160
*1 Moral Progress : human rights. Ongoing global campaigns have targeted child labour, capital punishment, human trafficking, violence against women, female genital mutilation, and the criminalization of homosexuality. Each has made measureable inroads and, if history is a guide, these barbaric customs will go the way of human sacrifice, cannibalism, infanticide, chattel slavery, heretic burning, torture executions, public hangings, debt bondage, duelling, harems, eunuchs, freak shows, foot binding, laughing at the insane, and the designated goon in hockey.
https://www.intelligentoptimism.com/ste ... l-progress
*1 Pinker's Progress : https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018 ... -show-why/
Biblical women's rights : men of the city gather around Lot's house and demand that he give them the two guests so they could rape them. In response, Lot offers the mob his two daughters instead, noting that they are virgins
Genesis 19
Glass Ceiling : an unofficially acknowledged barrier to advancement in a profession, especially affecting women and members of minorities.
The males and females in this thread seem to have different feelings about Objectification. For men, it's intended as a complement. A wolf-whistle is a rude & crude way of complimenting an attractive woman on her sex appeal. And some self-confident women seem to accept such boorish behavior as a positive ego-boosting comment. But for many women, objectification by an unknown male could be perceived as an implicit threat, or a sign of dominance. The "helpful" distinction you make in your post is exactly the same as the one in my first post : Sexual versus Political objectification.
The history of that instinctive gender distinction is clear : in most cultures, unattached women (unmarried or without children) have all-too-often been considered "fair game" by predatory males. Women have been raped and otherwise abused, when they had no husbands or family to protect them. That's why rape, by conquering armies, has been so common. Most "nice young men", in their own society, would not think of raping a woman. But the anonymity of war, and the absence of male protectors, allows them to commit unconscionable acts of violence ("booty", in ancient times; "war crimes", in enlightened modern political parlance).
The Sociobiology explanation for such "antisocial" behavior is that sexual aggression & political competitiveness are innate to the male genetic inheritance. That amoral scientific assessment was unfairly criticized for dismissing overt male dominance as merely a case of "boys will be boys". A Biblcal explanation is that all such "evil" tendencies are an inheritance from the "fall" of Adam & Eve. A self-serving interpretation of innate evil is that a raped woman got what she deserved. But Continental and Postmodern philosophers typically deny the notions of Human Nature and Original Sin. Instead, they blame most of the evils of the world on Human Culture, with the implication that an inclusive Socialist government could rectify the errors of previous male-dominant Capitalist political systems. Unfortunately, we have only a few examples (e.g. Sweden) of such egalitarian societies.
The June 2020 issue of National Geographic magazine has an article on the sad state of women in politics. In a Democracy Index table of of male/female representation in government, the United States was merely average, and Sweden was judged most gender democratic. Ironically, the former socialist republic of Russia lagged far behind. Moreover, even when quotas for women in politics are mandated by law, as in Afghanistan, the women are still dominated by men, and dismissed by women. One female Aghani parliamentarian lamented : "the problem was that the main decision-makers in this society are men, not women; even if we become politicians, the first and last word is said by a man".
So, it seems that the ideal of an egalitarian society, where women are respected as "agents" rather than used as "objects", remains a future fantasy. On the brighter side though, we can take some comfort from the documented fact*1 that humanity has made measurable moral progress, including Women's Rights, over recent centuries. Compared to Old Testament times, women have made gains in agency, but still have a long climb ahead to penetrate the "glass ceiling". That may be why the male posters don't see Sexual Objectification as a major problem for modern liberated women, compared with their long history of abuse & misuse.
Sex & Aggression : Humans follow gender‐specific sexual strategies, display aggressive behavior, and respond to physical pain as do other animals. Yet human beings have the intellectual ability to express these tendencies uniquely in either destructive or constructive ways. The human being, unlike any other animal, must reckon with sexual ethics, the problem of violence, and the meaning of suffering.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... 2385.00160
*1 Moral Progress : human rights. Ongoing global campaigns have targeted child labour, capital punishment, human trafficking, violence against women, female genital mutilation, and the criminalization of homosexuality. Each has made measureable inroads and, if history is a guide, these barbaric customs will go the way of human sacrifice, cannibalism, infanticide, chattel slavery, heretic burning, torture executions, public hangings, debt bondage, duelling, harems, eunuchs, freak shows, foot binding, laughing at the insane, and the designated goon in hockey.
https://www.intelligentoptimism.com/ste ... l-progress
*1 Pinker's Progress : https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018 ... -show-why/
Biblical women's rights : men of the city gather around Lot's house and demand that he give them the two guests so they could rape them. In response, Lot offers the mob his two daughters instead, noting that they are virgins
Genesis 19
Glass Ceiling : an unofficially acknowledged barrier to advancement in a profession, especially affecting women and members of minorities.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests