Girls aren't the only ones hurt by being objectified

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Ryong

But that link says nothing about a study and the link in it to what you'd think would be a study also just throws "over 80% of the consumer economy" in the exact same way.

This is also true. If your citation doesn't actually source its info it isn't a particularly useful citation.

[Satan's Onion]

Christ almighty, why is it we can't have nice things? I'm locking this for the time being because our nosedive into Shitburgh has broken the speed of sound and us staffpeople need to confer to figure out how to pull up.

[Kim]

So, on the subject of Seil's earlier thing about intimate partner violence here is an interesting link. Kit found it and I'm still reading through it but basically it talks about the troubles with existing statistics for intimate partner violence and what some of their statistics are.

Of note...

The studies that find that women abuse men equally or even more than men abuse women are based on data compiled through the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS), a survey tool developed in the 1970s. CTS may not be appropriate for intimate partner violence research because it does not measure control, coercion, or the motives for conflict tactics; it also leaves out sexual assault and violence by ex-spouses or partners and does not determine who initiated the violence.

A review of the research found that violence is instrumental in maintaining control and that more than 90 percent of "systematic, persistent, and injurious" violence is perpetrated by men. BJS reports that 30 percent of female homicide victims are murdered by their intimate partners compared with 5 percent of male homicide victims, and that 22 percent of victims of nonfatal intimate partner violence are female but only 3 percent are male. Researchers that use city- and State-generated databases for analysis, however, attribute 40–50 percent of female homicides to intimate partners. This discrepancy likely results from omission of ex-boyfriends and ex-girlfriends from the Federal Supplementary Homicide Reports that are used by BJS. Ex-boyfriends account for up to 11 percent of intimate partner homicides committed by men, and ex-girlfriends account for up to 3 percent of intimate partner homicides committed by women.

Many researchers agree that better measurement tools are needed to determine how intimate partner violence fits within the context of coercive control. How the victim perceives the violence is another factor (for example, within some intimate partner relationships, the victim may not perceive a particular type of abuse as battering and may not report it as such).

TL;DR: The 40% statistic is likely way off, but what the actual statistic is is debateable just because we're lacking the proper tools to measure this stuff accurately and meaningfully.

[Aerozord]

I want to say I have not been following this. I quickly saw where this was going and with all the crap in my life right now I didn't want to have to defend myself.

Though I popped back in to give a very simple elaboration of a poorly written opening post heavily influenced by depression.

My only point was this. Objectification is not as simple as "men are objectifying women" its "everyone is objectifying everyone". Our culture has plenty of problems on all sides with how it views relationships and sex. I just wanted to say we shouldn't lose sight of this by making blanket statements blaming all the problems on one group while acting like another is completely innocent and never does the same.

[Inbred Chocobo]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

My only point was this. Objectification is not as simple as "men are objectifying women" its "everyone is objectifying everyone". Our culture has plenty of problems on all sides with how it views relationships and sex. I just wanted to say we shouldn't lose sight of this by making blanket statements blaming all the problems on one group while acting like another is completely innocent and never does the same.

Now that is a good point. I meant only to imply that the objectification of men and women are different, and what most people interpret as objectification is really Sexual Objectification, which that lies primarily on women. Definitely not only men objectify, its simply not as prevalent.

Though Sexual Objectification is certainly not the only type of objectifying. People being seen as a source of income, or money, I would imagine is seen all the time. Not only do we have issues with objectification, we also have different kinds of objectifying to intermix. With this plus this being a sensitive topic for some, this can definitely lead to hurt feelings.


However, I kind of want to explore women objectifying men, simply because its a lesser known quantity. Let's take a look at someone that inspires feminism. Marilyn Monroe.

Here is what is interesting about Marilyn Monroe, a whole conversation could be started was that was she actually a feminist or was she actually just a sex object and showed what damage could be done by the male gaze. However, the people that pose that she was a feminist make an interesting proposal that we will examine.

One of the contributing reasons she was such an icon was because the life she had was one she built. She was abused as a child, lived in orphanages, and through all of that she built a life of wealth and acting, using her sexuality to be liberating and empowering. She didn't shy away from her sexuality, she embraced it and used it for herself.

So does that mean she was used and an object, or was she strong and empowered?

Let's take another look at something completely different. So, we all know about Girls Gone Wild, in which people go out, viewing young girls and encouraging them into lewd acts. There was something interesting though, as when people apart of this, both crew and the ladies involved, this was never viewed as derogatory, never actually turning girls into sex objects. They argued that this was women taking control over their own sexuality, they were the ones that decided who they were, both sexual identity and not, and chose what to do with it. This was not them being forced into sex objects, and being railed into certain roles, but instead taking charge, and choosing for a moment, for whatever personal reasons, they could be this way.

Does that mean these women were objectified, or does it mean because they chose to take charge of their own sexuality, they are in fact rising above it?

You can't have a person without some kind of sexual identity. Whether they are homosexual, extremely promiscuous, completely virgin and untouched, that is ultimately a part of who they are. A woman being in charge and choosing what she does with her sexuality is a part of her. It is not the only part, this should always be remembered, but you do just as much harm to ignore it completely as you would to define her completely from it.

I could very well see this line of thinking making women view others as objects as well. This as we stand now is certainly not the case, but if we don't consider it, could we potential be encouraging women to simply start objectifying men as a way to promote feminism? If we are, is that certainly the best way to go about it?

Well, its a thought anyway.

[Kim]

I understand you having a lot of crap going on in your life and needing to vent, and I sympathize with that. I just don't particularly like men calling women hypocrites for being guilty of one thing and complaining about an entirely different issue. I appreciate you acknowledging the opening post was poorly written.

As I'm pretty sure I said earlier, if beauty standards got ya down, I sympathize. I really truly do. We're all subject to beauty standards, and these standards are so wrapped up in -isms they're a fucking Christmas present of garbage.

But that's still different than objectification. Women actually do contribute to objectification, too. (Objectification of women, and also objectification according to race and even trans status) But you gotta lay the blame at the one's primarily responsible. Industries run by and catering to straight men are the prime sources of this objectification. It becomes uncritically consumed by the audience, and that consumption feeds the machine that continues this system.

When women are objectified, it is done for straight men. It is done primarily (but not exclusively) by men, most of them straight. So when you talk about objectification, yes, people are going to blame men, because men are the ones responsible on both ends. The ways women contribute are a form of internalized misogyny, which is a symptom of the root problem.

As for beauty standards, I feel like while they are more strict for women, they are more even-handed in terms of gender than the issue of objectification (at least for cis folks). Still, these beauty standards benefit certain groups over others. i.e. Culture at large considers me ugly for perceived masculine traits. The only way in which that culture deems me attractive is as a fetish object for straight men.

Additionally, our beauty standards are very white centric. Where making black women more palatable to our culture at large involves lightening their skin with photoshop. Where the beauty of black people is often centered around exotifying them.

This stuff intersects, too. I'm "ugly" because I'm trans and I don't pass as cis, but as a fetish object I'm considered more attractive than many others on account of being white and skinny. So, even tho I'm trans I still benefit a lot from thin privilege and white privilege.

Which doesn't invalidate anybody feeling down about personal appearance or wanting to tear down beauty standards or being upset at people uncritically indulging beauty standards, but I think in any discussion about beauty standards this shit is important to keep in mind.

[Aerozord]

Originally Posted by Kim

But that's still different than objectification. Women actually do contribute to objectification, too. (Objectification of women, and also objectification according to race and even trans status) But you gotta lay the blame at the one's primarily responsible.

No, you lay blame on everyone contributing. Just because you are not part of the demographic you deem responsible does not make you immune to blame. If you are a woman and are being sexist, its still wrong. You are still part of the problem. Likewise just because women are the primary victims doesn't mean men cant be victims too.

I do not group people together like that. Specific men are objectifying women, not all men are responsible. Just because not all men are responsible doesn't mean there aren't men at fault.

I apply the same to women. Specific women are objectifying men, not all women are responsible. Just because not all women are responsible doesn't mean there aren't women at fault.

[shiney]

I guess it's more like, column A is not equal to column B in terms of volume or quantity [of objectification] but I don't think anyone really felt like the reverse didn't happen. Just that you don't often hear about women glorifying the murder of men because they couldn't get laid.

No comments from the peanut gallery please. :p

[Kim]

The thing that Aero's arguing would require that all actions be devoid of context. In a world without context, a single man judging a woman based on her looks is no worse than a single woman doing the same.

Except we live in a world where our actions do have context. Where what we do, and even what we don't do, reflects and reinforces aspects of our society.

Even assuming that women objectifying white men according to appearance happens, which would specifically be women dehumanizing men according to physical traits, it is inarguable that the scale on which that happens is dwarfed by that of the objectification of women.

If Aero wants to argue men and women are objectified the same amount in our society, then this is simply a discussion I do not have the emotional energy for, and would gladly tag someone else in to address this grievous error of judgment.

So, in our society, in which it is the norm to objectify women according to physical appearance, that objectification is being primarily perpetuated by men and for men. What is important to note is that men benefit from it. What this means is that even if you yourself are not directly perpetuating something with your actions, you can still benefit from it.

When men as a whole are called out for this, it is because men as a whole benefit from this status quo. Women who perpetuate this sexism do deserve to be called out, but not as a whole. Individually. Because while those who do are doing something shitty, their doing so does not benefit women as a whole. At best, it benefits those specific women, and quite often those benefits can be lost in an instant at the whims of society at large.

This is how sexism works. The status quo is beneficial to men, because it has been created by men and is being perpetuated by men. That is why we call it patriarchy. Simply failing to contribute doesn't negate this. You must actively fight against it, and even as you do so you are still experiencing benefits of the system you must fight.

This is how it is for all forms of oppression. I benefit from structural racism in our society, so when black people or other people of color speak up about white people as a whole, I shouldn't go, "Not all white people!" I shouldn't go, "But some of us are trying to change it!" I especially shouldn't go, "Well Chappelle made jokes about white people and racism hurts everyone and you shouldn't blame all white people for racism." I should sit down, shut up, and recognize the voices of those hurt by oppression that I benefit from.

Even if a black person says prejudiced shit about white people or about me because I'm white, I don't experience any meaningful harm because of it, and it would be intellectually dishonest of me to call that racism, because that hypothetical prejudice is not part of institutional oppression.

[Red Mage Black]

Originally Posted by Inbred Chocobo

However, I kind of want to explore women objectifying men, simply because its a lesser known quantity. Let's take a look at someone that inspires feminism. Marilyn Monroe.

Here is what is interesting about Marilyn Monroe, a whole conversation could be started was that was she actually a feminist or was she actually just a sex object and showed what damage could be done by the male gaze. However, the people that pose that she was a feminist make an interesting proposal that we will examine.

One of the contributing reasons she was such an icon was because the life she had was one she built. She was abused as a child, lived in orphanages, and through all of that she built a life of wealth and acting, using her sexuality to be liberating and empowering. She didn't shy away from her sexuality, she embraced it and used it for herself.

So does that mean she was used and an object, or was she strong and empowered?

Correction, Marilyn Monroe was not a feminist and believed both sexes needed the other. I could dig up some of her quotes if you'd like.

Let's take another look at something completely different. So, we all know about Girls Gone Wild, in which people go out, viewing young girls and encouraging them into lewd acts. There was something interesting though, as when people apart of this, both crew and the ladies involved, this was never viewed as derogatory, never actually turning girls into sex objects. They argued that this was women taking control over their own sexuality, they were the ones that decided who they were, both sexual identity and not, and chose what to do with it. This was not them being forced into sex objects, and being railed into certain roles, but instead taking charge, and choosing for a moment, for whatever personal reasons, they could be this way.

Does that mean these women were objectified, or does it mean because they chose to take charge of their own sexuality, they are in fact rising above it?

You can't have a person without some kind of sexual identity. Whether they are homosexual, extremely promiscuous, completely virgin and untouched, that is ultimately a part of who they are. A woman being in charge and choosing what she does with her sexuality is a part of her. It is not the only part, this should always be remembered, but you do just as much harm to ignore it completely as you would to define her completely from it.

I could very well see this line of thinking making women view others as objects as well. This as we stand now is certainly not the case, but if we don't consider it, could we potential be encouraging women to simply start objectifying men as a way to promote feminism? If we are, is that certainly the best way to go about it?

Well, its a thought anyway.

So then, where do we draw the line in softcore/hardcore porn and advertising between expressing sexuality and objectification?

Originally Posted by Kim

The thing that Aero's arguing would require that all actions be devoid of context. In a world without context, a single man judging a woman based on her looks is no worse than a single woman doing the same.

Except we live in a world where our actions do have context. Where what we do, and even what we don't do, reflects and reinforces aspects of our society.

Even assuming that women objectifying white men according to appearance happens, which would specifically be women dehumanizing men according to physical traits, it is inarguable that the scale on which that happens is dwarfed by that of the objectification of women.

So you acknowledge it, but since it's "not as much" it doesn't matter or that it would only ever happen in a world without context or both? You see, this is what one of the problems of feminism is which only offers relief to the needs of the some and completely ignores the plight of the other and while doing so, allows the other to willingly decline. Egalitarianism is the only way to go. Your movement has already been poisoned by the rad fems who have painted your movement in a negative light. Women's Studies courses only continue this trend. If you need proof, check out the CAFE protest on YouTube. This is why some women don't even want to associate with you people.

If Aero wants to argue men and women are objectified the same amount in our society, then this is simply a discussion I do not have the emotional energy for, and would gladly tag someone else in to address this grievous error of judgment.

Or that you just don't want to do the work to prove him wrong.

So, in our society, in which it is the norm to objectify women according to physical appearance, that objectification is being primarily perpetuated by men and for men. What is important to note is that men benefit from it. What this means is that even if you yourself are not directly perpetuating something with your actions, you can still benefit from it.

Implying:
"You may not have been at the scene of the crime as it happened, but the fact you're associated to the suspect by sex and race means you're guilty of it, too."

Is that what you mean?

When men as a whole are called out for this, it is because men as a whole benefit from this status quo. Women who perpetuate this sexism do deserve to be called out, but not as a whole. Individually. Because while those who do are doing something shitty, their doing so does not benefit women as a whole. At best, it benefits those specific women, and quite often those benefits can be lost in an instant at the whims of society at large.

Which is actually a complete and total crock. Because the justice system and all forms of it, Politics, Social Security and Healthcare favor women. The only thing men excel at now is business and economics.

As for your earlier statement about Domestic Violence towards men being "way lower" than 40% is also a crock. Hell, that was your guess towards it and I'm sure you think it's absolute.

This is how sexism works. The status quo is beneficial to men, because it has been created by men and is being perpetuated by men. That is why we call it patriarchy. Simply failing to contribute doesn't negate this. You must actively fight against it, and even as you do so you are still experiencing benefits of the system you must fight.

1. I've already stated this above. Law, politics, social security and healthcare favor women.

2. Once again, implying guilt by association to sex and race.

This is how it is for all forms of oppression. I benefit from structural racism in our society, so when black people or other people of color speak up about white people as a whole, I shouldn't go, "Not all white people!" I shouldn't go, "But some of us are trying to change it!" I especially shouldn't go, "Well Chappelle made jokes about white people and racism hurts everyone and you shouldn't blame all white people for racism." I should sit down, shut up, and recognize the voices of those hurt by oppression that I benefit from.

This is at best hypocritical and at worst patronizing.

Even if a black person says prejudiced shit about white people or about me because I'm white, I don't experience any meaningful harm because of it, and it would be intellectually dishonest of me to call that racism, because that hypothetical prejudice is not part of institutional oppression.

Again:
At best: Hypocritical
At worst: Patronizing

Prejudice is prejudice, no matter how you look at it. There is no 'hypothetical' about it. Anyone hating anyone solely based on race is racism.

By the way: This is the woman who wrote about the statistic of >80% of women spending. Yes, it's more than groceries. It involves real estate just as well. And... Women own or co-own almost half the businesses in America(Check pg.36). So, what is this about women having no control over anything business related?

Now it's your turn to cite the claims you've been making before I go any further. You are not excused from the burden of proof.