The effect of increasing sexualization of women in the media

[Violet]

And that's a problem too. There is more than one way to dehumanize a woman and turn her into an object.

Dehumanizing and depersonalizing are not one and the same. Objectifying is to humanize.

Ahhh, knowing what you're talking about is fun.

[littleendian]

And that's a problem too. There is more than one way to dehumanize a woman and turn her into an object.

Dehumanizing and depersonalizing are not one and the same. Objectifying is to humanize.

Ahhh, knowing what you're talking about is fun.

That's no fun.... errr, wait... D'OH

[Dena]

Objectifying is to humanize.

Ahhh, knowing what you're talking about is fun.

Objectification is a notion central to feminist theory. It can be roughly defined as the seeing and/or treating a person, usually a woman, as an object. In this entry, the focus is primarily on sexual objectification, objectification occurring in the sexual realm. Martha Nussbaum (1995, 257) has identified seven features that are involved in the idea of treating a person as an object:

instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier's purposes;
denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination;
inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity;
fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects;
violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity;
ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold);
denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.
reduction to body: the treatment of a person as identified with their body, or body parts;
reduction to appearance: the treatment of a person primarily in terms of how they look, or how they appear to the senses;
silencing: the treatment of a person as if they are silent, lacking the capacity to speak.

- Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

[FlyingNarwhal]

If you go to McDonald's for a meal, do you treat the person behind the counter as an actual person? Or do you deal with that person simply to get what you want (i.e. a meal)? We objectify people on an everyday basis.

[Dena]

If you go to McDonald's for a meal, do you treat the person behind the counter as an actual person? Or do you deal with that person simply to get what you want (i.e. a meal)? We objectify people on an everyday basis.

Me? I try to treat them as a person. I acknowledge their presence, make eye contact, smile, say thank you and consider them an actual person with thoughts and feelings. So no, I try not to treat them as if they exist only for the purpose of preparing and handing me food.

Making an excuse for bad behavior based on another similar behavior isn't much of an excuse anyway. I've seen fast food works and retail workers being treated like shit. That isn't an excuse to portray women as sexual objects void of thoughts, feelings and autonomy.

[FlyingNarwhal]

Me? I try to treat them as a person. I acknowledge their presence, make eye contact, smile, say thank you and consider them an actual person with thoughts and feelings. So no, I try not to treat them as if they exist only for the purpose of preparing and handing me food.

And that's applaudable. I have worked many retail and fast food jobs so I appreciate that you treat those workers kindly. But treating them kindly doesn't mean they aren't being objectified. If you come to the counter and the guy behind it expresses that he won't be taking your order because his girlfriend broke up with him and he's feeling too depressed to work, chances are you won't be taking that excuse and neither will his manager. If it was your friend behind the counter (someone you have a close inter-personal relationship with) you would be more likely to have enough empathy towards his situation to not care if he is going to cook your burger. But with someone you don't know, you are more likely to report him to a manager and put his job in jeopardy, despite that he may be a father of three with a wife in chemo. Because in the end, he didn't cook your burger.

Making an excuse for bad behavior based on another similar behavior isn't much of an excuse anyway. I've seen fast food works and retail workers being treated like shit. That isn't an excuse to portray women as sexual objects void of thoughts, feelings and autonomy.

It's not that I think that sexual objectification is right, but look at it this way. As a dude I can tell you that I have absolutely no hope that men will ever stop objectifying women. Some of us may be able to, but for the vast majority of guys you are asking for something impossible. However, I do believe it is entirely possible that women should be able to sexually objectify men equally. For me I see no reason why we cannot put sex on ground level rather than putting it on the pedestal as something of great significance. Women should be allowed to objectify men as equall as men do to women.

[Violet]

Objectification is a notion central to feminist theory. It can be roughly defined as the seeing and/or treating a person, usually a woman, as an object. In this entry, the focus is primarily on sexual objectification, objectification occurring in the sexual realm. Martha Nussbaum (1995, 257) has identified seven features that are involved in the idea of treating a person as an object:

Central notions to 'feminist theory'?



Heaven forbid an object be used as an object. You're killing me, here.

instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier's purposes;
denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination;
inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity;
fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects;
violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity;
ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold);
denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.
reduction to body: the treatment of a person as identified with their body, or body parts;
reduction to appearance: the treatment of a person primarily in terms of how they look, or how they appear to the senses;
silencing: the treatment of a person as if they are silent, lacking the capacity to speak.

- Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Two things... firstly: that was ten, not seven. Secondly, none of these are central to the objectification of humans.

Not that you ever responded to my contention that dehumanizing an object is completely unrelated to how the term is used (to remove the person). The terms are not one and the same

---

Me? I try to treat them as a person. I acknowledge their presence, make eye contact, smile, say thank you and consider them an actual person with thoughts and feelings. So no, I try not to treat them as if they exist only for the purpose of preparing and handing me food.

Because people aren't objects that sometimes serve your goals?

Making an excuse for bad behavior based on another similar behavior isn't much of an excuse anyway. I've seen fast food works and retail workers being treated like shit. That isn't an excuse to portray women as sexual objects void of thoughts, feelings and autonomy.

Indeed... that'd be right humanistic, in fact. I hate humanism.

[Dena]

Heaven forbid an object be used as an object. You're killing me, here.

I think you may be missing the point.

Indeed... that'd be right humanistic, in fact. I hate humanism.

I have a feeling you and I aren't going to have much chance of real communication.

[Violet]

Heaven forbid an object be used as an object. You're killing me, here.

I think you may be missing the point.

I think that you may be missing the point within your security of your point. Doesn't stop dehumanizing from being a pointless venture if one is objectifying that human (the only way you're really going to find overlap with what you want is when a human is made into a table, dog, or other non-human object... in which case fucking them is usually quite counterproductive in the whole 'it's not a human' trope, but maybe the person not only wishes to dehumanize an object... but also is into beastiality? Yeah, not really what you're going for).

I have a feeling you and I aren't going to have much chance of real communication.

All communication is real, otherwise it wouldn't be communication. Anyway, I get the feeling that you're not all that bright... or more to the point: that you've taken things as you were taught them, without ever thinking about them. Probably still potential in you to shine brightly as a paragon of intelligence and humanity... but a diamond will not gleam through its dust.

[Dena]

All communication is real, otherwise it wouldn't be communication.

You barking at me isn't real communication. It's simply you patting yourself on the back for you perceived superiority. That isn't the way to share information or come to any sort of understanding of the other persons position.

Anyway, I get the feeling that you're not all that bright... or more to the point: that you've taken things as you were taught them, without ever thinking about them.

I wasn't taught anything about feminism. I've had to come to my own conclusions. I am a college educated woman, perfectly capable of thinking for myself. Thanks! Here you demonstrate precisely the reason I don't wish to try to continue our conversation.