Our Shared Shelf discussion

Hello! I wanted to add something to this discussion that perhaps may or may not have been discussed already. But I wanted the point of view of true feminists.

In society, women are often sexually objectified. We see it in ads, magazines, television, etc. But if the feminist movement is all about finding equal ground with males, when someone like Kim k posts a highly provocative (nude) picture online, doesn't that kind of take away from what women who are trying to stop the sexual objectification are trying to do?

Perhaps I have not been in this discussion long enough, but how do you guys feel about this? In a sense, those who explicitly sexualize themselves create a platform difficult for the rest of the feminist movement.

I personally believe that in this case, feminist shouldn't stay quiet about women sexualizing themselves and should speak out. And although I'm sure there are feminists who do speak out, I'm talking about the ones who truly have a voice. They should be saying, "No, you must be aware of the sexual implication you cause for the rest of women".

Now, the argument on the other side, is that women should feel "comfortable" and have "bodily acceptance"... something I totally understand and agree with. However, bodily acceptance is different than explicitly provoking sexual responses, and that includes nudes, and then wonder why these responses are happening.

Sexuality is biological natural. It is a discussion that involves every human. In that sense, it is natural for men to feel the biological attraction he does when he sees a naked female. To further along this discussion of feminism and the sexualization of women, we must address the women who explicitly sexualize themselves and INCLUDE them in the discussion. Not alienate them, or ignore them, as though they don't play a role. Please let me know what you think. Stay classy ladies

-Elizabeth

This line of reasoning really upsets and annoys me. And I've seen this so many times in this group and in real life too of course. I don't feel like writing a long comment explaining why what you wrote is so problematic and sexist (which is not your fault). So I'm just going to link to some videos.

Women cannot self-objectify. Because it is something that society does to them. Not something they create themselves https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LXAV...

And the argument about biology is victim-blaming. It excuses abuse and protects the abusers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzwYp...

Anything below is aimed at nobody in particular.

Sex and sexuality. Nothing wring with it.
Choosing to wear revealing clothing. Nothing wrong with it.
Choosing to wear covering clothing. Nothing wrong with it.
Wanting attention. Nothing wrong with it.
Wanting others to mind their own damn business, rather than catcall or lecture about breastfeeding. Nothing wrong with it.

Not wanting to keep one's penis inside one's pants, but insisting on shoving it into an involuntary vagina. All kinds of totally fucked up.
Blaming the victim. Totally fucked up.
Commenting on clothing choices made by others. Totally fucked up.
Telling others to stop showing whatever one feels is inappropriate. Totally fucked up, just mind your own business.

This world would be an immensely better place if everyone would just mind their own damn business, without spending so much time analysing in-depth and passing judgment on life choices of others.

If a woman feels like being sexual, what the hell is wrong with that? If she wants people's eyes on her, so be it. Desiring to be looked at isn't the same as asking to be objectified. A sexual woman is no object, and that is my final comment on what feminism should get through people's thick heads.

Thank you for your input, much appreciated.

Do you think feminists should address women who explicitly expose themselves to media?

Elyza wrote: "Do you think feminists should address women who explicitly expose themselves to media?"

I think it is absolutely none of my business how my neighbour chooses to clothe herself. This is how I wish feminism would address people's ownership of their own bodies, minds, souls, lives.

Here is an argument from my brother on facebook when I'd made the post go public.

So basically, our idea of "Sexual explicitness" is a result of the society that we grow up on. Since we grow up in a society that places alot of sexual connotations into those specific female body parts, we associate their exposure to be "sexually explicit".

But other cultures have a different understandings of sexually explicit. So for example, there are certain parts of the world that woman are forbidden and stigmatized for showing any parts of their body, including their hair, in public. It is also a given that woman in those parts of the world aren't treated as equals as well. Now for the sake of argument, let say that in those parts of the world there is an rise in popularity in feminism. They want equal rights, treatment, and everything else.

Now lets say for the sake of argument, within that part of the world, there is a celebrity over there who is a model. She doesn't cover her hair or her body in public. So maybe she is wearing a t-shirt and some shorts that is knees length. So to the people of that area, she is wearing things that is very "sexually explicit" because she isn't covering up. Would you argue that the lady is hindering the advancement of sexual objectification, and hindering the feministic movement.

I would argue that she is in a way HELPING the movement, because it starts a conversation about why it SHOULD be ok for woman to show their body and hair. Since we are talking about a culture, it isnt that simple. Obviously there are people adamant about not accepting change, so there will be a huge backlash.

Now obviously there are major differences in the amount of skin showing, but the main idea that I am trying to show by that example is, that the sexual objectification of woman is a cultural thing.

That being said, in the case for Kim K. I personally don't think that she is making it harder for the feminist movement. Since I don't know her true intentions on posting these images, I cant say that she is free from the blame as well.

I believe that there are much bigger fishes that are responsible, namely those who over sexualize certain female body parts, such as the magazine and advertising corporations. Even then, we can't put all the blame on these magazines, tabloids, or any specific group, because we all grew up in a society that taught us to believe a certain way. It would be far-fetch to suddenly shift this line of thinking, but at least you got the conversation started.

I understand and agree with what he had to say. What do you guys think? My intentions of this discussion was for me to put what was on my plate out there and learn.

Elyza wrote: "But other cultures have a different understandings of sexually explicit. So for example, there are certain parts of the world that woman are forbidden and stigmatized for showing any parts of their body, including their hair, in public. It is also a given that woman in those parts of the world aren't treated as equals as well. Now for the sake of argument, let say that in those parts of the world there is an rise in popularity in feminism. They want equal rights, treatment, and everything else."

There is so much talk on how women should behave, so that men would have it easier in regards to their penis. There is nowhere nearly enough talk about how men affect women the same way, but focus is on women to claim resposibility for the clothing choices that they make ("she was asking for it"). This is why it is called objectification etc. Men have full responsibility for where they decide to stick their penis, and for the consequences of that action.


Elyza wrote: "That being said, in the case for Kim K. I personally don't think that she is making it harder for the feminist movement. Since I don't know her true intentions on posting these images, I cant say that she is free from the blame as well."

If this person has posted nude photos of herself, I'd like to think she's a grown woman, who knows what she's doing. The way I see it, she's owned her sexuality, and chooses to put it on display.

Her "true" intentions are irrelevant, because the act of posting photos speaks for itself. I choose not to go anywhere else in regards to objectification, but I stop at "she shows her sexuality in a clear way, and my opinion on it doesn't matter, it's her own business".

Would I post my own nude photos online? Never. But that's irrelevant, as we weren't discussing my choice, but that of Kim K, whoever she is.

As a feminist, I'm pleased she's living her life according to her own belief system.

The only people worthy of taking any sort of blame for anything at all in regards to her photos, are those who say she should not do whatever she feels like. They can look in another direction, if they see her choice in person, or they can click to another website, if they don't wish to look at her.

People should claim responsibility for living according to their own beliefs and wishes, and this includes looking away when something doesn't feel like one's own cup of tea. It's very simple like that fortunately, but made extremely complicated quite unnecessarily (wanting to shove down others' throats one's own way of living).

Aglaea wrote: "Anything below is aimed at nobody in particular.

Sex and sexuality. Nothing wring with it.
Choosing to wear revealing clothing. Nothing wrong with it.
Choosing to wear covering clothing. Nothing w..."

Aglaea:
I was only thinking: What's coming next?!
And then this is all matter on which we share the same opinion.

I really don't care if a person want to wear clothes that are considered as reavealing of more modest clothes, really. As long as it is their decision. I'm with Haydée's opinion: sexual objetification is something that others do to us and we, as women (or even men who suffer it), has any fault in it.

In my personal case I was objetificated wearing a school uniform (with a long skirt) a long time ago, so now I really don't care what I am wearing if someone chooses to think I am an object with no feeling: I have nothing to do with it, sexual objetification is something an other person is doing to myself.

I feel that everything I was thinking has been said here already: whatever people find comfortable for themselves, I'm okay with it.

While we are at it, let us also acknowledge that women are just as capable as men to objectify.

Lots of women I've met elsewhere online have the most acidic comments to share (and they claim they are speaking in the name of Christianity no less, talk about recalling loving thy neighbour and all that jazz...) about clothing choices made by other women. They objectify and pass judgment, make the connection between another woman's set of morals and values to her clothing. It happens like a fluid dance, just like that, without any remorse either. Fascinating to watch. And then when you call them out on judgmental crap, either they go totally silent, or they start defending themselves as had they never said anything, but never ever do they own up to their judgment. Never. Fascinating.

As for objectifying men, how about "Ooooh look at that one, he's hot, I'd do him this instant"?

I objectified the hero of the most recently read historical-romance novel, but it's fantasy. Fantasy is for stuff we recognise not to happen in real life, just like shooting opponents in a video game or watching gory films on tv. When it's real objectification, I find it rather repulsive, though.

I believe that women are sexually objectified in today's modern society way too much. In the past, similar things may have happened but people weren't as aware.

I see women being over sexualized in ads, modeling and pictures and I heard about what Kim Kardashian posted. Yes, while body acceptance is an important message, nude pictures are not needed because they are sexual. People like her are the people who are allowing women to still be over sexualized. Body acceptance- Yes!, sexualizing- No!. Women are way more then sexual goddesses and we should be thought of as so much more.

I definitely agree Elizabeth! It seems like I'm sexualized every day, and I am sick of it! For example, a complete stranger told me, "I'd bed you." It's disgusting! I am more than just a sexual object used to satisfy men. However, people like Kim K are rewarded for sexualizing themselves, and it makes it harder for me to be taken seriously. Now, I do not believe in "slut-shaming" or anything like that, but I think we should understand that what Kim K does is against feminism.

I've learned that no matter how explicit someone chooses to expose herself, it is Never right to sexually objectify. That is a given.

However, I do not agree with the argument that we shouldnt "judge" people for how they choose to dress themselves, because it is not about judging people, but including them in the conversation. Now, to say "don't judge" is in a way judging someone for how they judge someone else. Do you see how that's an oxymoron? Its a paradox. There's no right or wrong way to go about it. In my perspective, the argument "just look away" or "click on another page", while may be implemented on a micro (individual) perspective, it can not be implemented in a macro societal level.

That is the only thing I can say about our discussion. We can not tell people to judge or not to, because an individuals mind is their own. At the same time, I believe the actions we take have consequences. True, society has sexualize female parts, but it is also our individual choice to expose it, and come in range of criticism and attention.

Oh, you (general you) feel free to judge as much as you like, as long as you keep it to yourself.

"True society has sexualize female parts, but it is also our individual choice to expose it, and come in range of criticism and attention."

And this is why we will keep banging our heads into the wall no matter how hard it bleeds, because there's always someone, who has to tell others how to live their lives, even though it is absolutely none of that outsider's business. It is called sticking one's nose where it simply does not belong, and that public/open critique is repulsive to me.

Elyza wrote: "to say "don't judge" is in a way judging someone for how they judge someone else. Do you see how that's an oxymoron? Its a paradox."

So true. As soon as I expressed my opinions as a religious woman, I caught flak for it because my religion is considered "patriarchal" and that's considered the real enemy here. Since then, things have toned down, though, and I appreciate that.

Elyza wrote: " I believe the actions we take have consequences. True society has sexualize female parts, but it is also our individual choice to expose it, and come in range of criticism and attention.
I agree with you on that! It's not just society sexualizing women,there's their own choice in it,too. Models on TV, magazines,fashion shows,etc. are sexualizing, but they choose to be models,they choose to wear excessively revealing clothes. They accept being made to wear them,you know. And they make the society believe that's what all women want: sexual attention. This way,they destroy the image of all women who do not wish to be sexualized.

Amanda wrote: "I believe that women are sexually objectified in today's modern society way too much. In the past, similar things may have happened but people weren't as aware.

I see women being over sexualized ..."

Yes,we are and should be considered so much more.

I think this about sums it up:

Maria wrote: "This way,they destroy the image of all women who do not wish to be sexualized."

Seriously? I think you're overestimating the "destruction" that you mentioned, too, as I'm surrounded by women who are perfectly content wearing a tad more than very revealing, and they have successful careers, stable relationships and families, none of which would go down the toilet if they one day would decide to start wearing more revealing clothing. Finding excuses and whining, however, is very easy.

No one is telling someone else to do or not to do here, just simple discussion.
Although, I feel the repulsion you feel for others doing what they want to do is an example of your own judgment towards them. Negative emotions only give rise to more negativity, but being aware of oneself is always key to understanding.

Anyways, to sum up my understanding of this (these) conversations, feminists have to fight the frontier against sexual objectification in society, while at the same time, continue to strive towards towards body acceptance. Its a very tough fight in my opinion, but not impossible.

With this next point, I'm not talking about rape culture or patriarchy. I'm not trying to give any excuse, whine, or give any "sexist" remark, victim blame or voluntary offense. To do so would be to take it out of context. This is a perspective. Freely disagree.

Animals don't reproduce by rubbing their fists together. They mate with their sex organs. We humans have sex organs, and use them to reproduce. Yes, we were all born naked, and society has stigmatized and sexualized the female body. However, that does not change the nature of what sex organs are and what they do.

Is there something sexual about breast? You tell me. I would say yes, but if you say no, that's on you. Is there something sexual about a penis? I would say yes. How about a vagina?

Knowing these body parts are sexual in their nature, how can we conclude that they're not when we say we're not sexualizing ourselves when we explicitly expose ourselves/post nudes. I'm not saying Objectify. I'm saying sexualizing.

Once again, we have our individual freewill to display them if we want. However, in a society that KNOWS what sex organs are for, we must ask ourselves: What are we contributing to society and what is the nature of our action?

We mustn't see society as something that is outside of us, or "other" than us. We are part of society, with our own little contributions and beliefs fueling its engine.

Elyza wrote: "Hello! I wanted to add something to this discussion that perhaps may or may not have been discussed already. But I wanted the point of view of true feminists.

In society, women are often sexually ..."

One side of the coin leans towards wanting women to bare it all proudly and then slap the man for reacting, because it is sexist to even admit that men tend to have stronger arousal DNA. (I can't say this right! Sorry!) It is in their genes - they genetic make up, to be more easily aroused, more easily addicted to certain things (saying this Rated G). So, do we blame society for this? The liberals do! They are still trying to prove that if we all bare it all, and go in the buff, that after 100 years of this, no one would take a second look and that we would be equal. The truth of the matter is that...

I have been to camps where Nudity is common place. And I still saw men wanted to do ME when I was 3 years old! I learned real quick that dressing "sexy" was not cool, and that it had little to do with society. This was way back in the day, when Ads weren't quite so revealing as they are now. Sure, it wasn't Rated G. James Bond still existed. They just figured out how to come across as not being perverted while day dreaming about having me at the one place where it is legal to child pornography. It was all around them. Just take children to camp and have them strip. Then, watch them walk around, swim, play. 100% legal child pornography. No thank you!

So, I humbly disagree with the liberals here. Been there, done that, it so is not happening. I will never want to the rights to go topless. I don't need it. I would rather fight for the rights of men being forced to wear tops! Why not? I think fair is fair! We can sexualize them too, can't we? And then maybe all of society will just dress better and not sexy and maybe...long shot here...maybe less children will be raped.

http://www.du.edu/korbel/hrhw/researc... is a very fascinating article! And, in Africa, not everyone dresses as conservatively as we do. However, I do not know if anyone has studied remote tribal groups and found whether rape happens there too or not. There is such a thing as "cultural norm" has the female children being married off at young ages. Should we be offended by this? Or, is it because it their culture, we should just allow it? Personally, female mutilation is apart of the Muslim culture depending on which sect of Muslim faith they follow, and I am outraged! No one should have to go through that. And, yes, I say to heck with cultural norms! Cultural norms were meant to be broken when they violate the rights of others. Thanks! (Will read comments but not respond back, only because I tend to be too controversial and do not wish to start a war. ;) Thanks! )

Where do I start. Very constructive input. Thank you Kytrya. I agree with everything you've said. Yes, your pov might be controversial, but when we break it down to a scientific pov, it casts a different perspective based on nature vs. nurture. The topic of child pornography and pedophilia is another topic I'd have to look into. I agree it's absolutely terrible.

As for whether we should just "accept" something because it is their culture, I believe we have to analyze and look at it from a moral perspective. It may be acceptable in their culture, but the degree of suffering/well being has to be measured and then looked at in a scientific perspective. If we know that a cultural norm brings about suffering, then it should be challenged. This is how we progress as people and society.

Interesting. I hadn't known it was "liberals" who blamed society. What would the other side of the argument be?

Kressel wrote: "I think this about sums it up:
The west-Woman doesn't wear it everywhere, but it is a good comparision. :)
"

Elyza wrote: "Knowing these body parts are sexual in their nature, how can we conclude that they're not when we say we're not sexualizing ourselves when we explicitly expose ourselves/post nudes. I'm not saying Objectify. I'm saying sexualizing."

I would say no, breasts are not inherently sexual -> ask any breast feeding mother, they can be very non-sexual. Or they can be sexual, just like I may find a guy's arm sexual. In terms of functional use as a sex organ though, breasts (and arms) are not required in reproduction (but can of course be amusingly involved!)

In regards to a post like that by Kim, does posting a topless photo automatically imply that she wants to illicit a sexual response by it? The body has many uses and functions beyond sex (clothes or no), so a post with nudity is not inherently done with the intent of sexual response. The fact that she has curves may cause her to seem more sexual than perhaps she even intended. In terms of policing women, curves are particularly hard to "hide", even with clothing.

In general, does publicly claiming one's own sexuality contribute to the overall objectification of women? Probably yes in some ways, but so does policing her ability to do so. Policing women's bodies is just as damaging as showcasing them as sexual objects in order to sell a hamburger. Both give women's bodies more weight as sexual objects than as a physical being that holds a mind, opinions, etc. Both also imply that men have some sort of complete lack of physical control over their actions.

Sexuality is indeed one part of a human's make-up, and there's nothing inherently wrong with it (it can actually be quite fun and positive!). I think objectification stifles sexuality. Women are too afraid of being seen only as that, and it can give young heterosexual men a wrong impression of what it means to be sexual with a female partner. It leads a lot of women to hide from that side of life, which is absolutely an acceptable choice as well, but not the only one.

Kressel wrote: "I think this about sums it up: "

Like that comic implies - the freedom is in the choice!

"Over the past few days, the Twitter hashtag #MiPrimerAcoso (“My First Assault”) has accumulated tweets from tens of thousands of women relating harrowing testimonies of their first – and often not their last – experiences with sexual harassment.
This conversation began on social networks in support of a nationwide protest against sexist violence, called “Vivas Nos Queremos [2]” (“We Want Us Alive”), that was held in several cities throughout Mexico on April 24, 2012.
Online the movement hasn't been limited to people in Mexico, and women from other Latin American countries have also dared to share their painful experiences.
¿Cuándo y cómo fue tu primer acoso? Hoy a partir de las 2pmMX usando el hashtag #MiPrimerAcoso [3]. Todas tenemos una historia, ¡levanta la voz!
— (e)stereotipas (@e_stereotipas) April 23, 2016 [4]
When and what was your first encounter with sexual harassment? Today from 2pm (Mexican time) use the hashtag #MiPrimerAcoso. We all have a story, speak out!"
https://globalvoices.org/2016/04/26/l...

For one thing, everything I want to say has already been said by Aglaea. For another thing I did wince at reading some things that were said about breasts being somehow a sexual organ... when they're not needed for the act of reproduction at all. The only thing they're really needed for is feeding babies and that's not sexual at all.

A second thing is that I've seen most of the transwomen have high levels of sex drive (what an average cisman has) when they were before the hormone transition and had their native body testosterone going. Once they used testosterone blockers and started taking dosages of estrogen, their sex drive actually dropped to that of an average ciswoman's.

The inverse also happens when transmen are before the hormone therapy, and after it. Before it, they have the low sex drives of ciswomen. After it, they have the high sex drives of cismen. Several who are feminists and had looked down on men for always leering, had been startled and a bit upset with themselves when they felt a strong urge to look at a woman's butt after passing her in the street. This is not said to condemn them in any way, but merely to illustrate my point: hormones and the levels of different hormones in your blood is very potent and powerful.

Hell, hormones are actually SO powerful that they can overrule what your sex chromosomes are saying. Ya know, the DNA blueprint that one commenter here was saying was somehow the ultimate decider of who had high sex drives and who didn't? Turns out it's not the case.

Someone could have XY (usually expressed as male) chromosomes but have Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, or AIS, where the levels of androgen (a relative to testosterone) in their blood do not have an effect and they seem almost immune to it. They're often born looking like little girls, go through puberty like other women, get breasts and curves and the soft figure, and they only find out that they have the XY chromosome when they go to the doctor's to ask them why they don't really have periods and are having trouble getting pregnant. That's quite a shock isn't it? Yet they predominately identify as ciswomen (they are called ciswomen here because they were ASSIGNED at birth by doctors as female even if their chromosomes were atypical for what a female usually had, and as they grew they agree with their assigned gender and sex.)

There are plenty of other examples, such as the XX people having high levels of testosterone and/or androgen in their bodies (which often happens for people who have PCOS or poly-cystic ovarian syndrome) and they will start growing thick and plentiful body hair, be at risk for male-patterned-baldness, have a higher risk for heart disease and high blood pressure problems (which most cismen have anyways, more of that risk than ciswomen in general), fat patterns that tend to settle around the stomach and not as much at the hips and butt as the average ciswomen, and their periods are quite affected with it usually being as one extreme or the other (i.e. light, irregular, very infrequent periods, OR heavy, irregular, infrequent or frequent periods). The main thing that's the same for the periods is that it's irregular as all heck and refuses to settle for any reason despite years and years after first starting menstruation.

I could go on with other examples of how people can have XXY, XYY, or even the single X chromosomes, and the other hormone disorders that exist that can make someone who has the more common XY or XX manifest extremely differently than the so-called "average" we're used to hearing about. Hell, there's even the intersex group that are more common than you think, can be because they have a different set of chromosomes than the usual XY or XX, but predominately its because they have irregularly shaped genitals that the doctors get confused by and don't know which of the two boxes to stuff them into at birth.

And there's plenty of science studies being done on the neurological side of things too, the brain, and finding out that certain areas of the brain (such as which parts of the brain get active when used for language vs. other areas) can be different between not just cismen and ciswomen, but heterosexual cismen from gay cismen, and lesbian ciswomen from heterosexual ciswomen. Hell, they're finding that transmen have more in common with cismen brains than ciswomen, and the same is true for transwomen brains having more in common with ciswomen brains than cismen.

Now whether those brain structures were there at birth, were predestined (or pre-set) to grow that way due to the tricky balance of hormone levels and DNA chromosomes and other factors we don't know just yet, or if they changed in response to the individual's gender identification, or even to the "power of mind over matter" where the gender identification powers the body's responses in return and starts shaping the body and brain matter in response... we don't know. We don't know YET if it was set from birth or changed that way over time. What we DO know is that it's there, it happens, and it's there even BEFORE the individual does hormone treatments. I.e. it was already there for quite some time. Of course, doing the hormone treatments afterwards does cause even more changes to those areas but not as much as you think.

All this is a very long-winded way of saying: it's bloody complicated. And no it's NOT solely from genetics so please don't keep trying to say that. Nor is it solely from hormones, but they do have a MUCH bigger influence than I'm sure many people realized.

As for having a higher sex drive being somehow "inborn" to cismen and chromosomal males? BS. There are plenty of things that directly contradict that, including the presence of asexual and/or aromantic men. Men who have less sex drive than average women. Women who have more sex drive than average men. Hypersexual disorders happen in BOTH men AND women. And yes they cause the individuals great pain and discomfort.

To generalize about these things is to lose sight of the complicated reality that is all around us. And, in a form, it is actually just perpetuating excuses for heterosexual cismen who are too lazy to work to have even a decent or average level of control over their bodies and the sexual choices they make with their dick. You can look yeah, but please don't overtly leer too much. Most men can do that. Everybody is ABLE to do this (with the exception of some mental disorders that may have some impairment over control but even still coping strategies can be taught and utilized to help). But taking the penis out from the pants and sticking it somewhere that it is unwanted just reflects horribly upon the character of the owner of said penis, so please don't try to excuse that away.

Let alone with anything even remotely similar to "boys will be boys!" *Indigo quietly shoots that phrase until its dead and drags the corpse of the "boys will be boys" phrase off to bury it somewhere it cannot be unburied or resuscitated again.*

Thank you and have a good day.

I am not very active in this board but this question/comment is something that I myself am thinking about a lot. I am for the idea that everyone should do what makes them happy or should live the life they want. But when I watch younger women and girls I get the sense that being pretty and exposing this is the only goal to achive in their lifes. And this makes me sad.

I was recently thinking about this when someone posted an image on their instagram. On the left, a pinup girl, on the right, Magic Mike, below, the words "THESE ARE THE SAME".... I had to stop for several minutes to try and consider what my friend intended by reposting this meme. But my first thoughts running through my mind were, "Are they? Are they Really?" I found myself playing "spot all x differences" like on the back of a Highlights magazine when I was a kid. For one, guess which sexualized image of a human had their nipples covered, the male or the female, I don't think I have to tell you which. For another, the picture of the sexy dude was International Superstar Channing Tatum, who's real-life past as an exotic dancer not hurt his later film career one bit. The image of the pinup girl was literally a stock photo, with watermark, of random model in a bikini and apron taking some muffins out of an oven in a sexy way. It just puzzled me that out of all possible examples she chose to compare those two to make her point.
In talking to her, I think her point was intended to be that the sexualization and objectification of female bodies is not corrected by the sexual objectification of male bodies. Which is view that I don't necessarily disagree with, but I don't think is as big an epidemic that she saw it as. I don't think 2 Magic Mike movies and her firsthand personal observation that "women are more ass-grabby towards men now because The Media" constitutes a trend. She alsoo had a lot to say about "personal responsibility" in that people shouldn't harrass people but that people should also not dress too sexy in public if they want avoid unwanted sexual overtures. (From my firsthand observation, men catcall me in my winter coat, but I won't draw any conclusions based on a data pool of one person)

I completely agree with Aglaea, and I want to thank Indigo a lot for the biological input :)
I would not say that arousal is only determined my male hormones (testosterone only?), a lot of environmental factors play there, be they biological or cultural.
Also, as a biologist, I want to remind you folks to be extremely careful with scientific studies about behaviour. When you look at the methods of such studies, you often find that the final conclusions are exaggerated: the number of people participating on the study is too weak, or the behaviour test considers only one aspect of the response, or the statistics analysis is not satisfying... a lot of biases, at every level.


To come back to the first post, I think a big matter here is the reappropriation of their bodies by women. Yes most men want to see naked women, yes most men will objectify women. But what happens when a woman shows herself naked, chooses to take control on what men (and the rest...) will see? She gets negative feedback. She gets slut-shamed. Men don't only want to see woment naked, they also want to control when and how they see her.
The objectification is also a matter of control.

So what about Femen?

What about the Slut Walk?

Why would we encourage women who are forced to wear covering clothes because they live at the wrong place, to show themselves... but treat negatively the ones who show themselves when they don't experience the same kind of oppression?

I personnally find it hard to not judge the appearance of other women, but I'm working on it :)

This reminded me that mansplaining is alive and well: http://www.businessinsider.com/featur...

As if it's up to males alone to initiate a connection (e.g. its the male peacocks who do the parading)

Haydée wrote: "This line of reasoning really upsets and annoys me. And I've seen this so many times in this group and in real life too of course. I don't feel like writing a long comment explaining why what you w..."

I feel this response is rather rude and closes down the conversation. If you feel strongly about a particular line of thought or opinion, I feel you should word it in a way that isn't so hurtful - even though you add that semi-apology "not your fault" bit.

Aglaea wrote: "Oh, you (general you) feel free to judge as much as you like, as long as you keep it to yourself.

"True society has sexualize female parts, but it is also our individual choice to expose it, and c..."

Again, I feel that there are comments being made on this discussion board that are pretty outright aggressive and unkind and pretty openly directed at specific speakers - if you are as open minded as you say about people needing to "mind their own business" than that also goes towards minding your own business about someone who has different opinions than you, rather than belittling them and basically saying they're wrong (and a silent "I'm right") about an issue and ending the discussion there.

The point of discussion is to hear everyone's thoughts on a particular matter and to have open discussion about it. If people feel differently than you, you can make your case but in a way that isn't basically calling them "repulsive."

I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this conversation. No hard feelings towards any personal attacks made. The point of this conversation was to challenge ideas and hear open minded perspectives from across the board. It is through conversation we can challenge and share what we know. Although someone else's ideas may starkly contrast with our own, we must remember that wars must be fought from the frontier of ideas (with hopeful contributions from studies and science), not violence or through ad hominems. Everyone has had different life experiences to influence their beliefs and we must first and foremost respect these perspectives. Allow us to raise the standard for conversation.

-Elizabeth

I personally think all objectification of women is, fundamentally speaking, one form of sexual objectification or another. No matter how it manifests itself, every societal injustice/inequality women face stems from the fundamental notion that women are more of a mishmash of sexual body parts than they are full-fledged human beings (which men are then usually made out to be). Things like rape apology, the enforcement of body/beauty standards, and many different polygamous cultures (maybe not necessarily all of them), while they are very likely to contradict each other at numerous points, all seem to operate from the same fundamental idea: men have less to prove to the world. Why? Well, when you really get down to it, the answer to that question will always break down to "because they have vaginas (and breasts, never forget the breasts)".

Tim wrote: "I personally think all objectification of women is, fundamentally speaking, one form of sexual objectification or another. No matter how it manifests itself, every societal injustice/inequality wom..."

I'm not sure of what you mean, Tim. Do you imply that oppression of the women is due to the fact that some of us have vaginas?

In my opinion, the oppressors like to have a "natural" justification: in the animal world, male hunt, and female take care of the progeny... so it should be the same for us primates, right? This is in the end one of the arguments that is used to justify everything, even if it doesn't make sense .

Laure wrote: "Tim wrote: "I personally think all objectification of women is, fundamentally speaking, one form of sexual objectification or another. No matter how it manifests itself, every societal injustice/in..."

What I meant was that any woman-specific form of oppression always stems from the notion that women ought to be valued mostly by either ability to bare children or to at least deliver sexual satisfaction or please them in some other way (visually, virtually, etc.).

Even if they drastically differ on whether or not rape is justifiable or culpable, or on whether or not women should be allowed to have sex without marriage, the justifications for any kind of misogynistic views will always boil down "they're women", usually followed by a series of assumptions about how women act, feel and think. As for the more primal ideas, I don't think they're at all compatible in the world we live in right now. This natural justification you mention can (and in my opinion should) be discarded, because we are not in danger of extinction, at least not the more natural kind, plus we as humans have developed to more needs and desires than just survival. We seek to develop skills and perform the labour that we want to perform, even though neither the skills nor the labour are essential to survival. I don't think humans can ever go back to primal gender roles without them causing very serious mental health issues, particularly (though not exclusively) to women.

Anyway, to answer your question, what I'm saying is: misogyny can take many forms, but it all stems from sexual objectification; I think of sexual objectification as the common ancestor of all forms of patriarchy. I hope that answers it :)

Tim wrote: "Laure wrote: "Tim wrote: "I personally think all objectification of women is, fundamentally speaking, one form of sexual objectification or another. No matter how it manifests itself, every societa..."

Ok, I think I've got your point.
I don't see sexual objectification as the stem of all misogyny but as a mean to apply the oppression, *and* also a final product of patriarchy. It's sometimes hard to go against the "Nature made it that way" argument (like you, I believe this argument is invalid) and men have used it to their advantage.
Somehow something disturbs me in the "everything stems from sexual objectification" idea, I cannot say I agree with it, but I cannot put my finger on it. I guess I'd need some ethnological and historical input ;)

Laure wrote: "Tim wrote: "Laure wrote: "Tim wrote: "I personally think all objectification of women is, fundamentally speaking, one form of sexual objectification or another. No matter how it manifests itself, e..."

I see. Well, I would try to give you one, but I feel like I'd pick one that is the easiest for me, so would you like to give me an example of a historical patriarchal system? I'll try to apply my analysis as best as I can from thereon.

Laure wrote: "Somehow something disturbs me in the "everything stems from sexual objectification" idea, I cannot say I agree with it, but I cannot put my finger on it. I guess I'd need some ethnological and historical input ;) ..."

Here's what I think isn't working about the idea that all oppression of women stems from sexual objectification.

Tim says: "What I meant was that any woman-specific form of oppression always stems from the notion that women ought to be valued mostly by either ability to bare children or to at least deliver sexual satisfaction or please them in some other way (visually, virtually, etc.).
and then,
justifications for any kind of misogynistic views will always boil down "they're women", usually followed by a series of assumptions about how women act, feel and think.

So the problem is this is a series of definitions of sexual objectification that gets wider and wider until the words have lost most of their meaning. Sexual objectification of women doesn't actually mean objectifying women because they can bear children, or because you believe their basic purpose is to be useful to men in some way, or simply because they are women and "women are ____" Yes those beliefs probably are at the root of the majority of oppression of women, but those beliefs aren't sexual objectification.

By the time you get to the widest definition, basically you are defining any form of seeing women as less than full adults deserving of respect as some kind of sexual objectification. Under that definition yes, most oppressive behavior toward women is probably rooted in some sort of negative attitude about women and their abilities. But that's no longer any kind of specific claim about sexual objectification. In fact its pretty close to a tautology ie; oppressing women is rooted in having oppressive attitudes toward women.

Reading along, what I suspect happened is that at some point in the proceedings the meaning of sexual in the phrase sexual objectification got switched. Sex can mean either the activity, or the reproductive category. Ie: George and Fred had sex, or George and Fred are of the male sex. In objectification the meaning is the first one, not the second one. But if you accidentally switch it to the second one - then you have objectifying people because of their sex, rather than objectifying people because you want to have sex with them. That shift in meaning then confuses the issue.

Tim wrote: "I see. Well, I would try to give you one, but I feel like I'd pick one that is the easiest for me, so would you like to give me an example of a historical patriarchal system? I'll try to apply my analysis as best as I can from thereon."

Hey, thanks for the proposition. But that was not really what I had in mind. I'm more looking for counterexamples. For example, misandrious societies; or patriarchal societies where the misogyny does not originate from the woman being the child-bearer... I want to understand when misogyny appeared, if it exists everywhere... I have the feeling its stem cannot (and should not) be reduced to sexual objectification.
However this is getting really too big, and out of the scope of this thread ^^'

Bunny wrote: "Laure wrote: "Somehow something disturbs me in the "everything stems from sexual objectification" idea, I cannot say I agree with it, but I cannot put my finger on it. I guess I'd need some ethnolo..."

Hi Bunny, thanks for your reply (I hadn't seen it beofre replying to Tim). You're right, the shift sexual/vagina/female body contributed in making the discussion confusing!

You're welcome Laure, glad you found it helpful!

I don't know. I just can't think of any patriarchal society throughout history that didn't hold the belief that women and/or their bodies are either toys to be used (by men) or "gifts" to be "cherished" (by men), as one of said society's underlining principles (or rather, customs that went without saying). As such, I came to the conclusion that it must be the building ground on which the other patriarchal elements are then built. But if people disagree then I don't mind. :)

I don't hold the belief either than woman's bodies should be viewed as something to please only men. If a woman wants to look nice, it should be for her, not for some man in her life. If it is her choice to dress or/and in a certain way, I don't see anything wrong with. However, if the man in her life is making her act a certain way to have some kind of "control" over it, then I do have a problem with it.

honestly i believe that if a woman as Kim K - to stick to your example- "objectifies herself" (i get that the term is problematic) its her own decision and i believe feminists should respect every women's decision (as long as those dont threaten other people be it man or woman). it would be wrong to condemn someone for their actions as long as they dont offend others with them.

I understand your point when it comes to those actions possibly resulting in a step backwards for other women, but that is where a healthy disposition or mentality is required. Others just need to realise that, if one woman choses to post nudes and therefore to "objectify herself" that decision does not reflect on the majority women or on women in general. There are women who would never do this and there are others who will, its their decision and we need ti respect both alternatives.

Laure wrote: "Tim wrote: "I personally think all objectification of women is, fundamentally speaking, one form of sexual objectification or another. No matter how it manifests itself, every societal injustice/in..."

Laure, you're right, it is invalid. Just because mammals have it that way, doesn't mean all animals do. There are certain fish species and bird species where the males take care of the descendants.(Sorry, can't think of a better word.)

Indigo, I highly appreciate your input, and have to say that hormones really are COOL. If anybody wants to know further details about intersex conditions, my inbox is waiting for you. I do love genes and hormones. (That's one of the reasons why I want us to read a book about intersex people, since they are so much in dire straits, and feminism really has to take care of them.)

MeerderWörter wrote: "Laure wrote: "Tim wrote: "I personally think all objectification of women is, fundamentally speaking, one form of sexual objectification or another. No matter how it manifests itself, every societa..."

Not even all mammals have it that way really. Hell not even all primates. The marmosets frequently have two males to every female because they often have twin births and the males carry the babies and often care for them, while only giving them back to the mother for nursing. Of course there are other styles of mating in their species and groups too but the one female to one or more males seems quite common. Others like this would be the tamarins. More info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyand...

I remember one striking example for the bird species would be the kiwi where the laid egg is half the size of the mother just about. She goes through all the effort to lay the egg then leaves the incubating and further child-rearing to the father. Seahorses are well known for the father even getting impregnated with the fertilized eggs and bearing them to term and then even having labor to push them out of the egg pouch. He watches over them as they grow, and the female visits him quite frequently as he was pregnant to make sure he was doing alright. Weedy sea dragons have the fertilized eggs laid on the male's tail but he still takes care of them unlike the female.

To say that "this is how it's done in nature" is a gross overgeneralization to the point of erasing every last bit of nature's beautiful diversity in preference for a bigoted and closed-minded viewpoint of "how things should be" imho.

I'm similarly fascinated by genes and hormones like you! Biology, reproduction, culture, behavior, group dynamics, sex/mating habits, etc. etc. etc. Life is always so messy, dynamic, fun, and totally original and mind-blowing with something new that just blasts all your preconceived notions of "how things are done" out of the water. It's why I like it so much. :D Not the boring "there is always ONE right answer and everything else is the wrong answer" attitude towards math and math-based sciences. Here there IS no one "right" or "wrong" answer and often times the truth is far stranger than anything you could possibly capture in a limited and rigid equation. Just more reasons why I adore the life sciences over the math-based ones, but that's just me. XD

It was good to read what Laure was saying, especially from their experience as a biologist. :D I have the same frustration whenever I see articles misquote or drummed up as "more conclusive" on a very small sample size, and in truth depending so much to a lot of unconscious biases on the parts of the scientists and observers involved - most of which is heavily patriarchal in basis due to our growing up in this heavily patriarchal world.

I also second Bunny on their always-amazing comments, especially with the damn confusion of using the same damn word for the copulating/fucking act as you do for the medical box that your genitalia and chromosomes assign you to be in. It lead to so much horrific confusion about the difference between "homosexual" (gay and lesbians) and "transsexual" (different genders) which is why I'm glad we moved into using "gay, lesbian" and "transgender" instead. It's also why I tend to have a "fight me on this, I dare you" attitude towards people who conflate the sex of the body with the gender of the person as being "one and the same."

Out of need for clarity, I've restricted in my own usage men, women, boy, girl, as gender terms, and male, female, intersex as medical sex of the body terms. But we seriously need to have a clearer divide between the sex act, and the sex of the body, to stop people from being so damned confused all the time. It's just doing more damage than good by now. *sighs and shakes head sadly*