About objectifying women

About objectifying women (Full Version)

All Forums >> [People] >> She Says

Message

Ah-pappapishu -> About objectifying women (5/15/2008 7:09:37 PM)
When you hear the phrase "objectifying women", what do you think? What do you feel? How do you define "objectifying"? What is "objectifying"? Is it good, bad, amoral? Are there parallel phenomena among women? Is "objectifying" natural? Unnatural? Is it pervasive, does it exist among all men in all cultures settings and situations? Just throwing this topic out there. I read an article on catcalls on CNN recently and it made me think.

BugLady -> RE: About objectifying women (5/15/2008 11:37:20 PM)
quote: How do you define "objectifying"? Viewing a woman as an object to be toyed with rather than a person worthy of respect.

Ah-pappapishu -> RE: About objectifying women (5/16/2008 5:03:11 AM)
Well, I believe all men objectify women, simply because it is wired into masculine thinking. We are conceptual thinkers and view things in a predominantly spatial sphere. It surprised me that the article, just like a lot of women who discuss this topic with me- totally ignored or were unaware of this fundamental truth. Objectification is by no means a bad thing. But perhaps emotional neglect combined with tyrannous objectification is the true problem that women face. Add to that the "objective" power that not just dominates masculine thinking, reasoning and actions, but also drives male libido and brings about sexual satisfaction. In fact, all things considered, I think women should understand and appreciate objectification, being a wholly natural and instinctive masculine tendency, and consciously steer the discussion towards the proper role, guidelines and management of this tendency. [:D]

car2ner -> RE: About objectifying women (5/16/2008 6:02:13 AM)
would you give us a link to the article?

CheshireMuse -> RE: About objectifying women (5/16/2008 10:52:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ah-pappapishu When you hear the phrase "objectifying women", what do you think? What do you feel? How do you define "objectifying"? What is "objectifying"? Is it good, bad, amoral? Are there parallel phenomena among women? Is "objectifying" natural? Unnatural? Is it pervasive, does it exist among all men in all cultures settings and situations? Just throwing this topic out there. I read an article on catcalls on CNN recently and it made me think. The term "objectify" in the context you've presented is very offensive to me as a woman. It implies the the idea that I am an object - a thing to be obtained. It dehumanizes me because "thing-hood" strips a person of opinion, thought, emotion, and equal value with the person doing the objectifying. I work in an urban environment and have occasion to run that gauntlet of construction crews fairly regularly. The very idea that grown men would act that way is, quite frankly, disturbing. I've often wanted to stop and address them directly about the disrespectful things they say. I'd like to know if their mothers would approve of the way they're acting... I'd like to find out how they would feel if their wife, or sister, or DAUGHTER was spoken to like they were speaking to me. And, really, think about it - has there ever been a woman, in the history of the free world who was swayed by that sort of idiocy and said, "Oh yes, fellas, here - take me NOW!" (sarcasm, in case you missed it...lol) No person, male or female, should be treated or looked upon as an object. A person is NOT an object, and should not be treated as such.

CheshireMuse -> RE: About objectifying women (5/16/2008 11:08:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ah-pappapishu Well, I believe all men objectify women, simply because it is wired into masculine thinking. We are conceptual thinkers and view things in a predominantly spatial sphere. So what you're saying is that men are incapable of seeing woman as people, and are "wired" to see and treat us as inhuman "things"? Sorry, dude... thats a cop-out.....And frankly, if I was a man, I'd be pretty insulted that you consider your own gender incapable of fair consideration. It surprised me that the article, just like a lot of women who discuss this topic with me- totally ignored or were unaware of this fundamental truth. Truth? What truth? Men are spacially wired.... ok... no big secret there... and this is supposed to be a legitimate reason to view another human being as a thing? Objectification is by no means a bad thing. But perhaps emotional neglect combined with tyrannous objectification is the true problem that women face. So, you're saying that its ok for a man to view his wife or daughter or love interest as an object as long as he doesn't emotionally neglect her? You do realize, of course, that when you objectify someone, it becomes much easier to become tyrannical towards them because, in its most basic sense, objectification is essentially seeing another human being, not as a person, but an object. And objects are disposible.... they don't have feelings... they are owned.... you see where I'm going with this? Add to that the "objective" power that not just dominates masculine thinking, reasoning and actions, but also drives male libido and brings about sexual satisfaction. All I can say is thank God my husband doesn't think this way. And to be honest - if I were a single woman and saw this, I'd take a vow of celibacy. This would scare me to death. In fact, all things considered, I think women should understand and appreciate objectification, being a wholly natural and instinctive masculine tendency, and consciously steer the discussion towards the proper role, guidelines and management of this tendency. [:D] We should APPRECIATE being turned into an object??? Are you serious? The fact that you really don't see how degrading this is to women (or anyone) kinda scares me.

miasma -> RE: About objectifying women (5/16/2008 2:48:40 PM)
...the objectification of women involves disregarding personal abilities and capabilities, and focusing instead on attributes relevant to women's role as sexual partners, such as physical attractiveness, sex appeal, and submissiveness. ~~~ Killing Us Softly pt. 1 part 2 part 3 part 4 ~~~~ The findings from the two studies suggest that even exposure to seemingly innocuous sexually suggestive ads can lead to disturbing antifemale sentiments such as objectification. ~~~ Extensive research has demonstrated the negative results of female objectification in the media. Depression, appearance anxiety, body shame, sexual dysfunction, and eating disorders are only a few among the growing list of repercussions (Fredrickson & Noll, 1997).

Ah-pappapishu -> RE: About objectifying women (5/18/2008 4:00:30 AM)
Awesome. Suddenly everybody's pumped to talk. Where in the world do I start [:D] I could start by saying that I believe male sexual arousal in itself is spatial, and is derived fundamentally through objectifying what is before them. Without "objectification" in the proper sense of the word, male sexuality would cease to exist, at least in it's current state. I'm no scientist, but I believe this is the case for most men all over the world, and the prevalence of visual pornography among other things makes a case for that. Now when I say objectifying, I don't mean the pop-culture definition, with all the presuppositions attached to it. I am referring to its true definition, by which I mean "to view as an object", ie to value the physical nature of something, especially erotically, but also otherwise. What would be interesting was if more guys take a look at their own experiences and examine how much "objectification" played a role in their relationships. Are women aware that their husbands need to view them as objects somewhere in the male sexual response cycle? [I'm not even sure if this topic is breaking any rules. I'm hoping it isn't.] Here's the article, for cartooner[It took me a while to get your name :D]: http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/05/14/lw.catcalls/index.html quote: ORIGINAL: CheshireMuse No person, male or female, should be treated or looked upon as an object. A person is NOT an object, and should not be treated as such. Therein lies the problem. In a physical sense, human beings are objects. However, they are not JUST objects. They are much more. They are human beings, people created in God's own Image, people with feelings, dreams, goals, wishes and a God-given purpose and destiny. [I have to make sure I mention that in case people mis-construe what I'm saying.] I'm also curious to know if it is possible to objectify a person without it being demeaning to them. [I think it is possible and it happens all the time. In fact, I think it is necessary for society to function, but I'm curious to know what YOU think.[;)]]

Ah-pappapishu -> RE: About objectifying women (5/18/2008 4:21:05 AM)
Prepare for a quotefest [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: CheshireMuse quote: ORIGINAL: Ah-pappapishu Well, I believe all men objectify women, simply because it is wired into masculine thinking. We are conceptual thinkers and view things in a predominantly spatial sphere. So what you're saying is that men are incapable of seeing woman as people, and are "wired" to see and treat us as inhuman "things"? Sorry, dude... thats a cop-out.....And frankly, if I was a man, I'd be pretty insulted that you consider your own gender incapable of fair consideration. Absolutely not. I didn't mention anywhere that spatial thinking is the exclusive and only way a man processes things. I did say however, that it is predominant, ie it usually comes first, and it's usually stronger than the other senses, at least initially. [And I'm gonna stick to that story. :D] I mentioned previously about how I defined objectification, at least for the purpose of this topic. It's more to do with how men process things mentally. quote: It surprised me that the article, just like a lot of women who discuss this topic with me- totally ignored or were unaware of this fundamental truth. Truth? What truth? Men are spacially wired.... ok... no big secret there... and this is supposed to be a legitimate reason to view another human being as a thing? Umm, yes. Of course, denying other aspects of another human being is inexcusable. However if one were aware of the fact that "Men are spatially wired", I think they would be less likely to condemn it outright, all but calling for its extinction. Not just in the article, but in society and the media in general. But maybe my perception is wrong. You tell me. quote: Objectification is by no means a bad thing. But perhaps emotional neglect combined with tyrannous objectification is the true problem that women face. So, you're saying that its ok for a man to view his wife or daughter or love interest as an object as long as he doesn't emotionally neglect her? You do realize, of course, that when you objectify someone, it becomes much easier to become tyrannical towards them because, in its most basic sense, objectification is essentially seeing another human being, not as a person, but an object. And objects are disposible.... they don't have feelings... they are owned.... you see where I'm going with this? That's not what I said. I said that the true problem women faced was possibly emotional neglect combined with tyrannous objectification. If one cares for another individual, they would not resort to do something which hurts or offends them. Even if a construction worker felt like cat-calling [is that the right grammar? My english is poor], he would not do it if he cared for a womans feelings. I'm assuming that would cover women getting offended. quote: Add to that the "objective" power that not just dominates masculine thinking, reasoning and actions, but also drives male libido and brings about sexual satisfaction. All I can say is thank God my husband doesn't think this way. And to be honest - if I were a single woman and saw this, I'd take a vow of celibacy. This would scare me to death. Could it be, perhaps that you don't know what he really thinks? [;)] Honestly, I think this issue for guys lies in a very instinctive, almost unconscious realm. There is no logical choice, decision or reasoning behind it. It's just natural programming. Or unnatural programming. quote: In fact, all things considered, I think women should understand and appreciate objectification, being a wholly natural and instinctive masculine tendency, and consciously steer the discussion towards the proper role, guidelines and management of this tendency. [:D] We should APPRECIATE being turned into an object??? Are you serious? The fact that you really don't see how degrading this is to women (or anyone) kinda scares me. I hope I clarified things a little bit so that you understand what I'm saying a bit better. If your still scared, I will pray for you. :D

Ah-pappapishu -> RE: About objectifying women (5/18/2008 4:24:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: miasma ...the objectification of women involves disregarding personal abilities and capabilities, and focusing instead on attributes relevant to women's role as sexual partners, such as physical attractiveness, sex appeal, and submissiveness. ~~~ Killing Us Softly pt. 1 part 2 part 3 part 4 ~~~~ The findings from the two studies suggest that even exposure to seemingly innocuous sexually suggestive ads can lead to disturbing antifemale sentiments such as objectification. ~~~ Extensive research has demonstrated the negative results of female objectification in the media. Depression, appearance anxiety, body shame, sexual dysfunction, and eating disorders are only a few among the growing list of repercussions (Fredrickson & Noll, 1997). Nice links. I wont nitpick them. Do you have anything more relevant? Most academic literature on this topic is very shaky and self-admittedly so. So little insight is being shed on the psychological aspects of sexuality once you look beyond the "activism-fueled-studies". The one group that is taking slow, painful steps to reverse this corrosion is NARTH. <3 God Bless them.

ebony101 -> RE: About objectifying women (5/18/2008 4:31:18 AM)
"The Holy Spirit fills us with power, love & self-control."2 Timothy 1:7

car2ner -> RE: About objectifying women (5/18/2008 7:59:27 AM)
Ah-p, thank you for giving me the link. I know that some guys are just clueless and don't really mean harm. Personally, if I know I look good and I get eyeballed (yes I notice) I don't mind. I understand that guys do that even if they mean no harm. Catcalling is unwanted, though. When I know I am looking dumpy with no attempt to look alluring, catcalls are down right insulting. Some have even sounded like a quick drive-by verbal rape! As far as men looking at women as objects, that is the first response. It happens. Men are wired this way, true. It is what happens after the the first few thoughts that counts. Or as I told my husband, looking once if fine. Stopping to drool is another thing.

CheshireMuse -> RE: About objectifying women (5/19/2008 10:34:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ah-pappapishu Prepare for a quotefest [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: CheshireMuse quote: ORIGINAL: Ah-pappapishu Well, I believe all men objectify women, simply because it is wired into masculine thinking. We are conceptual thinkers and view things in a predominantly spatial sphere. So what you're saying is that men are incapable of seeing woman as people, and are "wired" to see and treat us as inhuman "things"? Sorry, dude... thats a cop-out.....And frankly, if I was a man, I'd be pretty insulted that you consider your own gender incapable of fair consideration. Absolutely not. I didn't mention anywhere that spatial thinking is the exclusive and only way a man processes things. I did say however, that it is predominant, ie it usually comes first, and it's usually stronger than the other senses, at least initially. [And I'm gonna stick to that story. :D] I mentioned previously about how I defined objectification, at least for the purpose of this topic. It's more to do with how men process things mentally. quote: It surprised me that the article, just like a lot of women who discuss this topic with me- totally ignored or were unaware of this fundamental truth. Truth? What truth? Men are spacially wired.... ok... no big secret there... and this is supposed to be a legitimate reason to view another human being as a thing? Umm, yes. Of course, denying other aspects of another human being is inexcusable. However if one were aware of the fact that "Men are spatially wired", I think they would be less likely to condemn it outright, all but calling for its extinction. Not just in the article, but in society and the media in general. But maybe my perception is wrong. You tell me. quote: Objectification is by no means a bad thing. But perhaps emotional neglect combined with tyrannous objectification is the true problem that women face. So, you're saying that its ok for a man to view his wife or daughter or love interest as an object as long as he doesn't emotionally neglect her? You do realize, of course, that when you objectify someone, it becomes much easier to become tyrannical towards them because, in its most basic sense, objectification is essentially seeing another human being, not as a person, but an object. And objects are disposible.... they don't have feelings... they are owned.... you see where I'm going with this? That's not what I said. I said that the true problem women faced was possibly emotional neglect combined with tyrannous objectification. If one cares for another individual, they would not resort to do something which hurts or offends them. Even if a construction worker felt like cat-calling [is that the right grammar? My english is poor], he would not do it if he cared for a womans feelings. I'm assuming that would cover women getting offended. quote: Add to that the "objective" power that not just dominates masculine thinking, reasoning and actions, but also drives male libido and brings about sexual satisfaction. All I can say is thank God my husband doesn't think this way. And to be honest - if I were a single woman and saw this, I'd take a vow of celibacy. This would scare me to death. Could it be, perhaps that you don't know what he really thinks? [;)] Honestly, I think this issue for guys lies in a very instinctive, almost unconscious realm. There is no logical choice, decision or reasoning behind it. It's just natural programming. Or unnatural programming. quote: In fact, all things considered, I think women should understand and appreciate objectification, being a wholly natural and instinctive masculine tendency, and consciously steer the discussion towards the proper role, guidelines and management of this tendency. [:D] We should APPRECIATE being turned into an object??? Are you serious? The fact that you really don't see how degrading this is to women (or anyone) kinda scares me. I hope I clarified things a little bit so that you understand what I'm saying a bit better. If your still scared, I will pray for you. :D I've read over your response several times, because I wanted to be sure I understood what you were trying to say. My opinion is that you're playing with words. The definition of "objectify" is to "turn into or view as an object".... you concurred. The view you've presented comes off as a rationalization for poor behavior. You can believe what you want to believe, and "objectify" women to your heart's content (and if you can get them to tolerate it, more power to you)..... but, for the record - women are people, not objects (that ham-handed comment about everyone being objects is just silly - people are NOT objects). As for my husband and his "secret" objectification of me? Are you Miss Cleo or something? You don't know me, much less my husband. I am my husband's equal, and his partner.... not his possession. He does not view me as a thing, he views me as his wife and fellow human being. And, yes, men who think like you DO scare me....personal experience has taught me to be VERY wary of men with your particular views. I always feel like, in your eyes, women aren't quite human. I appreciate the offer to pray for me, but if its all the same to you, I'd rather you didn't. I have no need of it.

WhiteRoseBlessings -> RE: About objectifying women (5/19/2008 2:40:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ah-pappapishu Well, I believe all men objectify women, simply because it is wired into masculine thinking. We are conceptual thinkers and view things in a predominantly spatial sphere. It surprised me that the article, just like a lot of women who discuss this topic with me- totally ignored or were unaware of this fundamental truth. Objectification is by no means a bad thing. But perhaps emotional neglect combined with tyrannous objectification is the true problem that women face. Add to that the "objective" power that not just dominates masculine thinking, reasoning and actions, but also drives male libido and brings about sexual satisfaction. In fact, all things considered, I think women should understand and appreciate objectification, being a wholly natural and instinctive masculine tendency, and consciously steer the discussion towards the proper role, guidelines and management of this tendency. [:D] I truly, truly hope I never meet you in person. So only men's perceptions, concepts and thoughts are fundamental truths? What about women's perceptions, concepts and thoughts? There are not enough words to adequately describe how truly repulsive I find the, uhm, theories, of this OP. [8\|]

Auben -> RE: About objectifying women (5/19/2008 2:45:30 PM)
I don't like objectification, nor do I think that it's a natural state specific to the male gender. quote: I am referring to its true definition, by which I mean "to view as an object", ie to value the physical nature of something, especially erotically, but also otherwise. Be careful about claiming the 'true definition' of something without pulling out the OED. Objectify does mean "to view as an object" (or as my unabridged dictionary says "to cause something to assume the character of an object"). It does not mean 'to value the physical nature.' Viewing something as an object does not imply that you either approve or disapprove it. Let's examine that for a moment. Objectification is not the approval of someone's physical nature. It is the seeing something or someone as you would view an object (an object being "a visible and tangible material product or substance." ie objects are not animate beings). Objects are passive. Objects are not equal to the person viewing them. Objects do not feel pain or embarrassment or joy or tenderness. Objects simply exist. All human beings react first to physical characteristics. This is scientifically proven. Initially we have little data other than what our eyes can see. This is true for both men and women. The difference between objectification and this initial reaction is that objectification does not move past that initial response into understanding and empathy for the other person. Very few women like cat calls. Very few like suggestive comments or sexual banter or touching in a public place, ESPECIALLY by strangers. Objectification here is the inability for a man (or men) to move past his initial physical reaction and fantasy. The woman is not a person who might be embarrassed or angry or frightened. The action centers on what the man wants/thinks. The woman's wants are not imagined unless they coincide or otherwise bolster the male fantasy. So yes, women have a problem with being objectified. The bedrock of the female psyche is empathy. To merely be decoration in your fantasies is not only frustrating but disgusting. No matter how much you dress it up as a compliment it will never be one to us. Perhaps other men will appreciate it better than we do.

Hislittleone -> RE: About objectifying women (5/19/2008 3:34:29 PM)
quote: I could start by saying that I believe male sexual arousal in itself is spatial, and is derived fundamentally through objectifying what is before them. Without "objectification" in the proper sense of the word, male sexuality would cease to exist, at least in it's current state. I'm no scientist, but I believe this is the case for most men all over the world, and the prevalence of visual pornography among other things makes a case for that. This may be the case for men who aren't saved. But once a man gives his life to Christ this changes (or should anyway). That's not to say an unsaved man is bound to objectify women nor that he should. But I believe this "tendency" should "die" with the "old man", kwim? quote: Now when I say objectifying, I don't mean the pop-culture definition, with all the presuppositions attached to it. I am referring to its true definition, by which I mean "to view as an object", ie to value the physical nature of something, especially erotically, but also otherwise.------ emphasis mine Again, if a man is a Christian he shouldn't be viewing any woman other than his wife in an erotic way. Women are not inanimate objects to be lusted after for your (men in general) own pleasure. Our sexuality is created FOR OUR HUSBANDS and for them alone to enjoy. And that includes our physical appearance. Objectification is synonimous with emotional neglect IMO. It is very scary to know that there are men out there who think this way about women. It makes it ok in some men's minds to beat, rape and otherwise assault us. Take away the humanity and it's suddenly "ok" to commit all kinds of atrocities. This is all very disturbing and a very worldly (NON-Christlike) view.

Ah-pappapishu -> RE: About objectifying women (5/19/2008 5:55:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ebony101 "The Holy Spirit fills us with power, love & self-control."2 Timothy 1:7 Kudos for heading right to the scriptures. The Bible truly has the answer for everything, if you look hard enough. :) quote: ORIGINAL: car2ner Ah-p, thank you for giving me the link. I know that some guys are just clueless and don't really mean harm. Personally, if I know I look good and I get eyeballed (yes I notice) I don't mind. I understand that guys do that even if they mean no harm. Catcalling is unwanted, though. When I know I am looking dumpy with no attempt to look alluring, catcalls are down right insulting. Some have even sounded like a quick drive-by verbal rape! As far as men looking at women as objects, that is the first response. It happens. Men are wired this way, true. It is what happens after the the first few thoughts that counts. Or as I told my husband, looking once if fine. Stopping to drool is another thing. You know, that's exactly right, and I agree with you 100 percent there. The attitude frankly should be towards healthy management and self-control [there we go ebony101 [;)]]rather than contempt and outright rejection. A line needs to be drawn instead of an attempt at emasculating a man's identity and core processes. I had a conversation about this with someone else, and she said something like "It's different when you love them." She said that she would be fine with it if she was in a loving relationship with the person. I'm not sure if all women feel that way, but it's striking that love is what makes the difference. Another thing is that some guys are blessed enough to learn this kind of control and management, they learn decency from their environment, while other kids who grow up without guidance, morals are support have never had the opportunity to learn self control much less practise it.

Ah-pappapishu -> RE: About objectifying women (5/19/2008 6:12:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CheshireMuse I've read over your response several times, because I wanted to be sure I understood what you were trying to say. My opinion is that you're playing with words. The definition of "objectify" is to "turn into or view as an object".... you concurred. The view you've presented comes off as a rationalization for poor behavior. You can believe what you want to believe, and "objectify" women to your heart's content (and if you can get them to tolerate it, more power to you)..... but, for the record - women are people, not objects (that ham-handed comment about everyone being objects is just silly - people are NOT objects). As for my husband and his "secret" objectification of me? Are you Miss Cleo or something? You don't know me, much less my husband. I am my husband's equal, and his partner.... not his possession. He does not view me as a thing, he views me as his wife and fellow human being. And, yes, men who think like you DO scare me....personal experience has taught me to be VERY wary of men with your particular views. I always feel like, in your eyes, women aren't quite human. I appreciate the offer to pray for me, but if its all the same to you, I'd rather you didn't. I have no need of it. I will say that I find the discussion very stimulating. The responses are interesting and very enlightening to say the least. I do think if you go back and see what I said to others you will get a more clearer idea of what I'm trying to say, because I never tried to justify or rationalize poor behavior. I believe firmly in the need for dignity and respect, for self and others. However, I think you should recognize that this is a core process of cognition, it is how God has fashioned the "male brain", to put it simplistically. It's not with the intention of degrading or humiliating women, it is just the way the male brain processes the world around them. Of course, I am trying to be rational, so I have to say that I believe we are physical entities, with physical attributes. I can't speak for you, but I have colored skin, five fingers, two eyes. I have a height, a weight, a physical shape. Hence, I am an object. My dictionary agrees too. [:D] It's a fairly easy concept to understand. I hope you come to terms with it someday. BTW, I believe this even as I use my physical fingers to type at a physical keyboard. How nifty! [:D][:D][:D]

Ah-pappapishu -> RE: About objectifying women (5/19/2008 6:18:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhiteRoseBlessings quote: ORIGINAL: Ah-pappapishu Well, I believe all men objectify women, simply because it is wired into masculine thinking. We are conceptual thinkers and view things in a predominantly spatial sphere. It surprised me that the article, just like a lot of women who discuss this topic with me- totally ignored or were unaware of this fundamental truth. Objectification is by no means a bad thing. But perhaps emotional neglect combined with tyrannous objectification is the true problem that women face. Add to that the "objective" power that not just dominates masculine thinking, reasoning and actions, but also drives male libido and brings about sexual satisfaction. In fact, all things considered, I think women should understand and appreciate objectification, being a wholly natural and instinctive masculine tendency, and consciously steer the discussion towards the proper role, guidelines and management of this tendency. [:D] I truly, truly hope I never meet you in person. So only men's perceptions, concepts and thoughts are fundamental truths? What about women's perceptions, concepts and thoughts? There are not enough words to adequately describe how truly repulsive I find the, uhm, theories, of this OP. [8\|] You hope never to meet me? No big loss I hope. [8D] Yes, I do think men's perceptions, concepts and thoughts are fundamental truths. However, I do not think they are the ONLY fundamental truths. Womens perceptions, concepts and thoughts are just as true as those of men. I believe that one needs a little bit of both to find the right balance in the walk of life. I think this is at least part of the reason why men need women, and women need men, and God has allowed the unique attributes of men and women to come together in love and unity to forge families, communities, societies and nations.

WhiteRoseBlessings -> RE: About objectifying women (5/19/2008 6:28:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ah-pappapishu I believe that one needs a little bit of both to find the right balance in the walk of life. I think this is at least part of the reason why men need women, and women need men, and God has allowed the unique attributes of men and women to come together in love and unity to forge families, communities, societies and nations. This part I can understand, but it is quite contradictory to what you said previously. Pretty it up and try to justify it any way you want to, but objectifying any human being is appalling.

Ah-pappapishu -> RE: About objectifying women (5/19/2008 7:03:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Auben I don't like objectification, nor do I think that it's a natural state specific to the male gender. quote: I am referring to its true definition, by which I mean "to view as an object", ie to value the physical nature of something, especially erotically, but also otherwise. Be careful about claiming the 'true definition' of something without pulling out the OED. Objectify does mean "to view as an object" (or as my unabridged dictionary says "to cause something to assume the character of an object"). It does not mean 'to value the physical nature.' Viewing something as an object does not imply that you either approve or disapprove it. Let's examine that for a moment. Objectification is not the approval of someone's physical nature. It is the seeing something or someone as you would view an object (an object being "a visible and tangible material product or substance." ie objects are not animate beings). Objects are passive. Objects are not equal to the person viewing them. Objects do not feel pain or embarrassment or joy or tenderness. Objects simply exist. All human beings react first to physical characteristics. This is scientifically proven. Initially we have little data other than what our eyes can see. This is true for both men and women. The difference between objectification and this initial reaction is that objectification does not move past that initial response into understanding and empathy for the other person. Very few women like cat calls. Very few like suggestive comments or sexual banter or touching in a public place, ESPECIALLY by strangers. Objectification here is the inability for a man (or men) to move past his initial physical reaction and fantasy. The woman is not a person who might be embarrassed or angry or frightened. The action centers on what the man wants/thinks. The woman's wants are not imagined unless they coincide or otherwise bolster the male fantasy. So yes, women have a problem with being objectified. The bedrock of the female psyche is empathy. To merely be decoration in your fantasies is not only frustrating but disgusting. No matter how much you dress it up as a compliment it will never be one to us. Perhaps other men will appreciate it better than we do. I avoid the OED at times due to its tendency to include "cultural" terms. Maybe they do it to be relevant, but when the discussion is semantic, I find that it muddies things up. Other dictionaries do it too, but from what I've seen, our OED trumps them all. If you really want to get into semantics. (I <3 Words[:)]), we would have to start at the word object. I prefer MW, here's what they tell me: quote: Main Entry: 1ob�ject Pronunciation: \ˈ�b-jikt, -(ˌ)jekt\ Function: noun 1 a: something material that may be perceived by the senses <I see an object in the distance> b: something that when viewed stirs a particular emotion (as pity) <look to the tragic loading of this bed�the object poisons sight; let it be hid � Shakespeare> I think that definition covers exactly what I mean. "to value the physical nature of something" is a mere extension of the meaning when you put it in verb form. [I apologise if my English is unclear btw. I'm bad at English but I'm trying [:D]] Now the definition not only covers what I'm trying to say, but it also covers human beings. In fact, I can point out that your extrapolation is clearly incorrect. Human beings have physical natures- physical bodies which obviously comes into the category of "a visible and tangible material product or substance". Our bodies are visible, they are tangible. They may not be fabric, but in the most basic definition, they are substance. So how do you get the idea that objects as a category cannot include animate beings?[A] That's a cultural idea, but it is not rational. [I think 99 pct of the people who are angry about my point are cuz they see it culturally and not rationally.] We can agree that human beings are not MERELY objects, not JUST objects, not ONLY objects. They are much more. But their physical bodies are, without a doubt categorised as tangible, physical, material objects. This is just reality, isn't it? On your next point of reacting to physical characteristics, your right, 100 percent. But objectification, in this definition (I call it the proper definition because it means what it says [:D]), has nothing to do with the other processes. You can process something physically, in an "objective" way, and then move on into understand, feeling, nurturing, empathizing. Or it can even be vice versa, with the emotions coming first, and the objective later (in the case of the internet, we are engaging in the emotions without any objective processing). But the point I'm making is that these two are distinct and different. The "objective" and the "emphatic"(i think thats the wrong word), are two separate, distinct processes. Just because you objectify does not mean you cannot or will not empathize. You distinguish between the initial process and objectification, but I think they are one and the same. The initial process does not lead to empathizing and understanding automatically. I think the true difference between the initial process and objectification is that objectification is when it is carried on for longer for other purposes. A medical checkup often involves treating a physical body like an object and checking physical characteristics. As does sports for another example. The whole thing is objectifying other players, objectifying the ball, perceiving it all in a very objective, physical sense. But we need to agree on how to define the terms first. [;)] BTW, this is very intellectually stimulating. Thanks for jumping in. I'm eager to hear your response. [Sorry if I alienated everybody with all this technical mumbojumbo :P]

Ah-pappapishu -> RE: About objectifying women (5/19/2008 7:20:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhiteRoseBlessings quote: ORIGINAL: Ah-pappapishu I believe that one needs a little bit of both to find the right balance in the walk of life. I think this is at least part of the reason why men need women, and women need men, and God has allowed the unique attributes of men and women to come together in love and unity to forge families, communities, societies and nations. This part I can understand, but it is quite contradictory to what you said previously. Pretty it up and try to justify it any way you want to, but objectifying any human being is appalling. No, I have always said the same thing. I think it's just that you have perceived the word "objectifying" in a cultural term and not a rational term. I have explained it elsewhere quite in depth. You don't have to be scared to look at what I am saying and examine it. [8D] If you can point to something specific, I'm willing to clarify it for you. Once again, check my responses to other people because you might find answers in them too.

WhiteRoseBlessings -> RE: About objectifying women (5/19/2008 7:27:52 PM)
I'm not "scared" of anything; nor do I need you to be so condescending. Simply put, I strongly disagree with the entire concept of objectifying any human. As an example, slavery came out of such nonsense. Additionally, while the below post wasn't written directly to me, I can sincerely and most definitely tell you right here and right now that I have no need, desire nor intention of ever "coming to terms" with such a repulsive theory. quote: ORIGINAL: Ah-pappapishu It's a fairly easy concept to understand. I hope you come to terms with it someday.

landabee -> RE: About objectifying women (5/19/2008 7:44:30 PM)
quote: Nice links. I wont nitpick them. Do you have anything more relevant? How in the world do you define and find something more relevant than a four part presentation with visual and textual examples of the objectification of women??? It is so simple to dismiss that which is not according to one's viewpoint.

landabee -> RE: About objectifying women (5/19/2008 7:46:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhiteRoseBlessings quote: ORIGINAL: Ah-pappapishu Well, I believe all men objectify women, simply because it is wired into masculine thinking. We are conceptual thinkers and view things in a predominantly spatial sphere. It surprised me that the article, just like a lot of women who discuss this topic with me- totally ignored or were unaware of this fundamental truth. Objectification is by no means a bad thing. But perhaps emotional neglect combined with tyrannous objectification is the true problem that women face. Add to that the "objective" power that not just dominates masculine thinking, reasoning and actions, but also drives male libido and brings about sexual satisfaction. In fact, all things considered, I think women should understand and appreciate objectification, being a wholly natural and instinctive masculine tendency, and consciously steer the discussion towards the proper role, guidelines and management of this tendency. [:D] I truly, truly hope I never meet you in person. So only men's perceptions, concepts and thoughts are fundamental truths? What about women's perceptions, concepts and thoughts? There are not enough words to adequately describe how truly repulsive I find the, uhm, theories, of this OP. [8\|] I'm with you, on this. {{{{{{shudder}}}}}} [sm=icon_smile_dead.gif][sm=icon_smile_dead.gif]

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI