LUV capitalism!!! Study shows hyper-sexualization of women by the media has increased 10 fold...

[Sarah Ibarruri]

Study Finds Marked Rise in Intensely Sexualized Images of Women, not Men

BUFFALO, N.Y. -- A study by University at Buffalo sociologists has found that the portrayal of women in the popular media over the last several decades has become increasingly sexualized, even "pornified." The same is not true of the portrayal of men.

After analyzing more than 1,000 images of men and women on Rolling Stone covers over the course of 43 years, the authors came to several conclusions. First, representations of both women and men have indeed become more sexualized over time; and, second, women continue to be more frequently sexualized than men. Their most striking finding, however, was the CHANGE in how intensely sexualized images of women -- but not men -- have become.

In the 1960s they found that 11 percent of men and 44 percent of women on the covers of Rolling Stone were sexualized. In the 2000s, 17 percent of men were sexualized (an increase of 55 percent from the 1960s), and 83 percent of women were sexualized (an increase of 89 percent). Among those images that were sexualized, 2 percent of men and 61 percent of women were hypersexualized. "In the 2000s," Hatton says, "there were 10 TIMES more HYPERSEXUALIZED IMAGES OF WOMEN than men, and 11 TIMES MORE NON-SEXUALIZED IMAGES OF MEN than of women."

More at link: http://www.buffalo.edu/news/12769

[Brickbat]

1. Painful and important.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

13. Quite. It was no surprise to me. One would have to be an idiot to not notice...

but it's good that they're actually noticing the problem and doing studies on it, and good that studies are proving what we're all seeing anyway.

[Warren DeMontague]

165. Why? No, seriously. Why?

I mean aside from the fact that there's nothing "scientific" about these studies that claim to validate pre-ordained subjective opinions, what is the point of commissioning studies to confirm something for people who think they "know" it already?


...to give jobs to sociology post-grads who otherwise would be working at Starbucks? That's my guess.

[Bucky]

194. It's sad that some liberals don't believe in pure science research.

It's useful to study the problems of society so that good-hearted political factions can argue intelligently about the need to reform and educate the public. This isn't money-driven science, but it is social science research that can help us understand some of the roots and influences of many social problems of today.

[Warren DeMontague]

211. Phony statistical quantifications of bs terms like "hypersexualization" AREN'T 'science' at all.

this isn't about money-driven research, this is about trying to pretend that someone's subjective opinion is somehow quantifiable scientific fact.

[sendero]

254. Wow..

...we need a "study" to find that "sex sells". Well, to men at least. WHO WOULD HAVE THUNK IT??????????????

And more importantly, so what? Exactly what kinds of actions can be taken to stem this tide of "hypersexualization" that offends people so much?

The answer to that one is obvious. Nothing.

[Hissyspit]

266. Did you read the study?

Not the excerpt, not the whole news article (MSM does a notoriously shitty job of encapsulating academic and science discipline articles, in case you never noticed), but the whole study?

[Warren DeMontague]

294. You mean the one they're charging 35 bucks to read?

No. I guess I'm just not enough of a committed anti-capitalist to pony up that much dough for it.

[antigone382]

332. As a sociologist, I'm a little astounded by your claims.

They reveal a profound ignorance of how sociology works. It is ackowledged in the field that we are almost always working with abstract concepts--whether it's sexualization, class status, religiosity, aggression, happiness--even race is a socially constructed concept, based on common perceptions of something that has no real genetic basis. That doesn't mean it isn't critical to study those concepts and to understand their implications.

That's why sociologists working on a research project will develop precise definitions for the concepts they are studying, and the criteria and methods they are using in the study of those concepts. The data and methods are always listed in the research for other sociologists with a wide variety of perspectives to examine and challenge if they think such definitions are incomplete or inadequate, or if they think the methods are biased. It is subject to the same process of peer review as any other discipline based on the scientific methods (and yes, you generally have to pay to access the journals in which such articles are published, the same as you would for any other discipline).

If you want to challenge this study on its own merits, then do that. Condemning the field of sociology as a whole based on misperceptions of how it actually works and what it actually aims to do only weakens your argument.

[getdown]

338. thank you

"If you want to challenge this study on its own merits, then do that. Condemning the field of sociology as a whole based on misperceptions of how it actually works and what it actually aims to do only weakens your argument."

as it turns out, he knows it's a weak argument ... as someone else points out, ignoring his ignorance may allow discussion to continue.

[Warren DeMontague]

347. "As it turns out...." Um, I'm not a puppet on the end of your wrist.

So please don't presume to speak for me. Trust me, your ventriloquism skills aren't THAT good.

[Warren DeMontague]

346. I'm not condemning the whole field. As I said downthread, I think sociology is a useful lens through

which to look at cultures and people.

However, I *do* object to these particular sociologists engaging in a tired process of hyping results in a way that presents them as quantified and solidly scientific. Sorry, "hyper-sexualization" as a real concept that applies to, for instance, Rolling Stone covers, is a completely subjective label. Now, maybe as you say in the paper that costs 35 bucks to read, they acknowledge as much and present a rational case for offering some statistical analysis of what is, again, a subjective opinion.

But the problem with these "studies" is that they are piled upon each other and cross-referenced (you can see it elsewhere in this thread) to provide the basis for arguments presented as 'scientific' which are, again, no such thing.

I am not the only person to lodge this objection to this kind of thing. There is a tremendous amount of bad "science" out there, much of it agenda and ideology-driven, and everybody knows it.

[Warren DeMontague]

369. Speaking of astounding claims:

In order to measure the intensity of sexualized representations men and women, the authors developed a "scale of sexualization." An image was given "points" for being sexualized if, for example, the subject's lips were parted or his/her tongue was showing, the subject was only partially clad or naked, or the text describing the subject used explicitly sexual language.

If you're going to arbitrarily define the criteria for a word (like "hyper-sexualization" ) that you just made up, you can't pretend that you're describing ANYTHING except the presence of a totally arbitrary, subjective phenomena that you yourself went looking for. Get it? "Hyper-sexualization" and "pornification" are totally bogus constructs conveniently created for the purpose of pushing a pre-ordained agenda.

These findings may be cause for concern, the researchers say, because previous research has found sexualized images of women to have far-reaching negative consequences for both men and women.

This is COMPLETE BULLSHIT, and is a perfect example of why pseudo-scientific "studies" like this one need to be challenged. Because otherwise, they're piled one on top of each other to create a veritable edifice of bullshit, like "Mark says Ted is truthful and we know Mark is truthful" How do you know Mark is Truthful? Because "Ted says that Mark is Truthful" etc. etc.

[getdown]

374. word games

cmon you can see the title and use in this sentence of "the intensity of sexualized representations men and women" which they - SCIENTIFICALLY - set some criteria to measure in their study. Mkay?

you don't like their made up terms. call it what you will. you deny it?
what "pre-ordained agenda" has you so bent on this? snafu? status quo?


"After analyzing more than 1,000 images of men and women on Rolling Stone covers over the course of 43 years, the authors came to several conclusions. First, representations of both women and men have indeed become more sexualized over time; and, second, women continue to be more frequently sexualized than men. Their most striking finding, however, was the CHANGE in how intensely sexualized images of women -- but not men -- have become."

truth hurts.

"Their most striking finding, however, was the CHANGE in how intensely sexualized images of women -- but not men -- have become."

worthy of discussion

[Warren DeMontague]

380. It's striking because they made up the criteria and then -surprise- found a 'striking' increse in it

understand? They completely made up the criteria. It's not science. "Worthy of discusssion"? Fine. Then they should write an op-ed saying "We're mad about all the skin and eroticism we see on the cover of Rolling Stone". But peddling it as somehow hard statistical quantifiable scientific fact, chock full of bogus psychobabble like "hypersexuality" and "pornification".. it's fucking idiotic.

And speaking of discussion, what do you honestly think is going to be achieved, here? You think you're going to arrive at some nirvana where everyone on the cover of Rolling Stone is dressed in Puritan Garb? What?

[getdown]

385. you claim it's "fucking idiotic"

"And speaking of discussion, what do you honestly think is going to be achieved, here? "

back off and find out

[Warren DeMontague]

399. I already found out

and as always it's nice to know that my spidey-sense was right, once again.



Maybe it's because I'm an indigo child who escaped the ill effects of NASA's brutish moon bombing.

[Kingofalldems]

2. The Kardashians also did their part

They seem to be everywhere.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

6. The Kardashians ARE part of the media. We wouldn't even know who they are without the media.

They wouldn't be making money if not for the media. They'd be some obscure family, and probably would dress more normally and not do the things they do. This is all part of the media culture, and what the media cultivates AND SELLS: the hypersexualization of females.

[lapislzi]

17. Media is selling sexuality as a commodity.

Women are objects to be bought and sold, for the delectation of men. That's never been in dispute since before the days of Botticelli. However, now it's in your face. That's the difference.

[whathehell]

132. I have only one quibble with your post

"Women are objects to be bought and sold, for the delectation of men".

Women were never "objects"...They have always been people.

I think that distinction is important....After all, African-American Slaves were "objects to be bought and sold",

may have been TREATED as such, but that was not the reality.

They, like women, were perceived as such, but the situation ended

with laws and a changing social environment.

Women's legal status as 2nd class citizens or "slaves in all but name" changed starting

with suffrage and continuing on with equal opportunity laws.

Unfortunately, the "social environment" has not changed for women, IMO,

as much as it has for minority males.

[seabeyond]

134. i think the social environment has change. significantly in last decade.

i think it has changed from barefoot and preg to dehumanized fuck. there were only "those" women in the past. now it is all women..... and girls.

[whathehell]

139. I know what you are saying....To a certain extent,

old fashioned "prudery", if you will, kept all this sexualization of women at bay, and in that sense,

at least, I think it was a "good thing".....That being said, there has to be a better way...So many

people, confuse the new "openness" with the other.

[seabeyond]

142. there is a better way. we had it for a little while until we went to pornification and girls/women

handed their sexuality to men/boys, instead of owning it. until the girls take it back, it will be harnful to both genders. no one can have ownership of another and be healthy

[Warren DeMontague]

163. ***

[seabeyond]

167. i get it. you are part of the asshole group. and you wear it with pride. i hear ya.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1114149

[Warren DeMontague]

168. Either that, or you're mad

because I know what's really going on.

[seabeyond]

176. wha???? lol. ah ha. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

182. It's never been the same since the indigo children bombed the moon

I think there's a folk song in there, somewhere, actually.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

184. Don't be mean to the man. Everything on earth exists for a reason.

He exists to make us glad we're not like him.

[seabeyond]

189. hey... i am not being mean. it is a hoot. they brag, they say

they feel pride in being an asshole. i figure a person would embrace it, not see mean.

[Warren DeMontague]

192. For the record, I didn't think "you" were being mean.

And yes, I put "you" in quotes on purpose.

[seabeyond]

198. i dont know why you put you in quotes, but, i am glad you did not think i was being mean. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

201. If I posted Denis Leary's "I'm an asshole" in the "assholes check in thread"

I think you can safely assume that I'm not going to freak out when someone says "look, you said yourself that you're an ..."


I don't take myself THAT seriously, thanks. I'm really not that easily offended.

Sort of the same reason I don't get all flappy-armed: "ZOMG!1111!!! OHNOESITSTEHENDOFCIVILIZATION111!!!!"


because of sex on the cover of Rolling Stone.

[seabeyond]

204. no... not with naked women, but you sure do flappy armed if women

speak out against it.

ya, multiply by ten the number of hair on fire if a woman dare challenge this dehumanizing bullshit. and you are all over it in hysteria. flat out, in your face, hysteria, i am telling you.

"ZOMG!1111!! dont mess with my pron.

[Warren DeMontague]

205. challenge away, I say

I will even support you buy not buying Rolling Stone unless I'm in an airport, although that's pretty much been what I've done for the past 20 years anyway.

[seabeyond]

206. i dont give a shit what you buy. it is really not about rolling stone. but no surprise

that just totally flies over your head. wwwwooooosh, is the sound

[Warren DeMontague]

208. Wait. What about the Rolling Stones?

[seabeyond]

215. hey, i am sorry you can't get no... satisfaction. hey hey hey..... i know you have tried and tried

tried

but you cant get no .... no no no

satisfaction.

bah hahahaha

[Warren DeMontague]

216. Yes, because I'm Mick Jagger.

You found me out!

[seabeyond]

217. hey, i thought you were telling me sumthin. lol. bah hahaha. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

219. each one of my words is a multi-faceted font of wisdom pearls which operates on multiple levels

verily, it is so.

[seabeyond]

221. can't get no....

lmao

no no no.....

on edit... i love that song. was fun listening. and so young

[whathehell]

232. Just ignore him.

He's just disrupting.

[Warren DeMontague]

243. ***

[whathehell]

227. Of course he does....Typical. n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

195. He should embrace it! You're doing him a favor. nt

[seabeyond]

197. see. glass half full. accepting them for who they claim to be.

that is a good liberal.

[Warren DeMontague]

199. One of me is plenty, thanks.

I mean, lots of folks agree with me on a lot of various issues, but I have no need to see a whole ton of clones of myself running around spouting my opinions to feel that they're valid.

[PhoenixAbove]

256. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore

This whole sub-thread by DeMontague is nothing but an attempt to derail and trivialize the OP. Some are experts at this and you see it all the time when women post things that are relevant to women. The only way to deal with people like DeMontague is not to respond to them. Do. Not. Engage.

[getdown]

335. there it is PhoenixAbove

well put

[Warren DeMontague]

348. Amazing how many people seem to have signed up for the sole purpose

of agreeing with other posters in this thread.

Welcome to DU!

[getdown]

357. you are

remarkably self absorbed

[Warren DeMontague]

362. Maybe I just don't have enough selves.

I bet the redundancy helps with the absorption rate.

[Warren DeMontague]

368. La La La

More like

[Warren DeMontague]

164. ah, yes, the good old days of prudery.

Sticky Ricky Santorum agrees.

[whathehell]

186. I'm not for prudery or "sticky" and I think you know that...Good try, though n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

193. "You" think "old fashioned prudery" was a "good thing"

I mean, funny that someone might think "you" were in favor of it, given that those were "your" words.

[whathehell]

210. Read the post again...This time with your "thinking cap" on, lol.

that remark was qualified....I said it was better in

that women were LESS exploited sexually in the media, and then added

that I wished there was a "better way"..e.g. than prudery or pornification.

[Warren DeMontague]

213. So you said it, but you qualified it.

you still said it.

[whathehell]

223. And?

Sorry, bro, not interested in playing "gotcha".

[Warren DeMontague]

242. More like got y'all

[whathehell]

264. Funny..

how no one feels "got", lol.

[Warren DeMontague]

311. perhaps you should take a poll

[getdown]

229. even when they were property?

"Women were never "objects"...They have always been people."

[whathehell]

231. No more or less than African American slaves.

or any "slaves".....Legal standing does not undo one's intrinsic humanness.

I'm not at all sure what your point here is.

[getdown]

234. you think

slaves and "chattel" were treated as people, not as property?

what is your point?

[whathehell]

239. Um...No....The original statement went to what they "were"

not "how they were treated".

They were treated as "objects"...In reality, they were people...Clear enough for you?

[getdown]

276. you may quibble

Clearly the poster meant women were considered objects to be bought and sold, for the delectation of men. When you are the one on the receiving end of that perception, semantic hair splitting matters not. Your "disctinction" seems only to minimize the experience of those perceived and treated as human property; comprehending that experience is relevant to the thread.

As for African Americans, most have grown up on a continent far from where they might have been if "perception" had not altered "reality." "Changing social environment" physically and in every other way.




" "Women are objects to be bought and sold, for the delectation of men".

Women were never "objects"...They have always been people.

I think that distinction is important....After all, African-American Slaves were "objects to be bought and sold",

may have been TREATED as such, but that was not the reality.

They, like women, were perceived as such, but the situation ended

with laws and a changing social environment."

[whathehell]

355. Getdown,

I don't know how this happened, but somehow, you've misunderstood me.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough, because, far from seeking to minimize your experiences,

I understand them as I've EXPERIENCED them myself, and I know EXACTLY what you're talking about!

At certain points, perception BECOMES reality, at least as it's experienced

by the person who is incorrectly being "perceived" as an object rather than a human being.

I'm a woman and a feminist and have had more than my share of

harrassement and being viewed as "property", so I empathize completely!

I was probably being too "literal", but was only trying to emphasize women's humanity

by making a clear statement that women, and people of color certainly ARE people,

even though we've been treated otherwise.

We're definitely in agreement on this, Getdown..

[getdown]

358. got it

thank you. well put. Happy New Year.

[whathehell]

367. Thanks, and

Happy New Year to you too.

[getdown]

370. had a feeling

that was the case. your patience and diplomacy do DU proud and are appreciated

[whathehell]

378. Wow.

That is probably the nicest thing anyone on this board

has ever said to me.....Thanks so much, getdown

[getdown]

379. well

what the hell

[Warren DeMontague]

381. Did you see this? It's AMAZING!

[getdown]

388. don't play that

the balls too small

[Warren DeMontague]

396. I'm sure it's way easier if you're fielding a whole shitload of paddles.

[whathehell]

384. heh heh

[Warren DeMontague]

166. I blame OJ.

[randome]

3. Yeah, but I would question what they use as the definition of 'sexualized'.

Are these images that men find sexualized? Do they have a panel of men? A panel of women? Who makes the 'hypersexualized' diagnosis?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

12. Here's where you will find those answers - the actual study

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k722255851qh46u8

[boppers]

230. Paywall.

No access to actual information.

[JustAnotherGen]

4. Sarah

I wish you had posted this in one of the womens' forums at DU.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

8. May an article post be posted twice? nt

[JustAnotherGen]

11. I dunno

But I'll keep my peace and observe this. . .

P.S. My Mass Comm Thesis years ago was images of women in the media.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

14. Luvin' is good lol

Was it? Your thesis? What did you conclude? Is it online?

[JustAnotherGen]

70. I concluded

That soft pornographic and monarch inspired portrayals of women in print, film, t.v. (no internet really in 1994 - at least not like today) were a constant brainwash that lead women to believe they could make more money off their weight and sexuality than via education and/or trade skills. But I looked at Media from 1965 through 1995. Started with Twiggy (vapid, vacous, androgynous anorexic) and ended with The Guess Ads - think Anna Nicole Smith as a hunted submissive animal. Women are 'things' to be moved around and posed - nothing more and nothing less. Man - you can tell I'm in the same age group as Monica Lewinsky. She was very 'typical' for the early 1990's - "I'm getting bombed and hooking up women" who defied that 'doe in the cross hairs' programming. I think she's hated more for THAT than giving the President a hummer in the Oval Office. 'Good girls' (rolling eyes and groaning) don't do that. It's 'boys being boys' who are sexually aggressive. And I respect bands like Motley Crue (think the video Girls, Girls, Girls) who put it out there so blatantly far more than I do Lady Gaga with so-called empowerment. Yuck!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

74. Seems to me like you need to either write a book on this or teach a class

I've never heard anyone provide a summary like yours on how the media has degraded women in the past few decades. If there were a course like that down here, I'd take it!

[JustAnotherGen]

95. I write

A lot of it is Ghost Writing or alias. Used to have e-zine for single women over the age of 35. You know what though? I think the book has already been written. Annnnnnnnnnd - I think you are in your mid 20's or there about correct? The Beauty Myth (Naomi Wolf - yep that one that wrote Letter To A Young Patriot and got arrested for being OWS) and Backlash - by Susan Faludi. They obviously took a much broader scope but to me - they are THE Feminist writers (along with Melissa Harris-Perry) of Generation X. They told us hard truth back in the early 90's (Wolf/Faludi).

[MineralMan]

36. Yes, I think so. People cross-post articles a lot.

I don't think there's any problem with it.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

37. Thanks, Mineral Man! nt

[BlancheSplanchnik]

88. Yes you may post twice. I'm GLAD you posted in GD, actually

Most women already KNOW this, the study just verifies it. If it were posted in one of the women's forums, only that small section of DU would see it.

Many MEN, however, don't appreciate the effect on women or that there is even a problem with seeing an entire half of the population as narrowed down to one tiny sliver: young and seductive.

Many women don't even appreciate the negative effect such marginalization has...Taking hits to your self esteem repeatedly, daily, with no validation that what you're experiencing is draining and insulting does damage.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

136. Draining and infuriating. I get pissed off when I see women pornified in magazines, TV and movies

I think: Oh for f*ck's sake, are they just filling this with pornified females because they can't manage a DECENT story, storyline, script, anything at all? It says to me that there's no frikkin' talent out there, if they have to fill magazines, TV and movies with Barbiesized, half-nude females. Is that the only way they can sell these things? Maybe they have such a small staff that they have no writers, or they can't afford good writers, or that they're in the business of TRASH. That's what it says to me.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

141. I have the same kind of reaction

It's the one sidedness that really pisses me off most of all. As if these people that write this stuff have no sisters, no female friends, no mothers, no interactions with any women at all except on a sexualized level! Can't even imagine women as anything other than the fantasy.

I talked about the Madison Avenue thing here in this thread, this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=80868 (I don't want to copy-paste the whole post, seems obnoxious to do that)

Thanks for starting this thread, it's important!

[cthulu2016]

5. Is Rolling Stone now a adequate scientific proxy for "the media" or "capitalism"?

This is like a study of media that only looks at Fox News or The Cooking Channel.

This OP headline is not at all an accurate reflection of the study or its findings.

The linked article headline is better, but incomplete. I should be:

Study Finds Marked Rise in Intensely Sexualized Images of Women, not Men on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

9. Here - read the study

Since I know you like to read studies, how they're organized, set up, carried out.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k722255851qh46u8

[cthulu2016]

18. The methodological fine points are irrelevant to this particular objection

A study, no matter how excellent, limited to covers of a niche-market magazine with a series of individual humans as art director is not a useful proxy for the media, let alone for capitalism.

A study of whether fruit in grocery stores is tainted that studies one lime is of limited meaning no matter how brilliantly that one lime is studied.

The actual study has a perfectly good headline: Equal Opportunity Objectification? The Sexualization of Men and Women on the Cover of Rolling Stone.

The article about the study has a less useful headline.

And the OP has a very un-useful headline.

[Gormy Cuss]

50. I agree.

The headlines are sensational. The study title is precise. This is a common problem with the way media reports such studies, and far too often even the text of media reports fails to describe the study appropriately.

[lapislzi]

7. Having trouble with this

Because the terms are subjective and ill-defined. After reading the Buffalo article, I am no closer to understanding what a "hypersexualized" image would look like (and no, I am not after pictures; I am merely trying to understand the criteria being applied). The article mentions "parted lips" (may or may not be sexual, depending on the context) and nudity, both partial and total.

How this adds up on the sexualization scale is not fully explained.

I'm not trying to start an argument or deny the truth of it, but vague language doesn't help to make the case.

Suggested reading for people interested in the topic of the objectification/fetishization of the female body: "Ways of Seeing" by Jon Berger.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

10. I'm going to help you...

Here's the actual study:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k722255851qh46u8

[JustAnotherGen]

15. don't forget

Monarch Programming . . . I believe it exists. My father believed it exists. And it's why people shrug shoulders regardless of where the woman is hypersexualized. Enslaved. Submissive. It's why people people The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is 'empowering'.

[seabeyond]

21. not only empowering, but an excitement and titillation at seeing 2 hour and 45 minute of violence

against women.

a phenomena like i have yet to see, except the movie passion of christ with fundamentalists.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

26. I'm embarrassed at my ignorance but I don't know what The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is about...

However, it's out in theaters, so I'd better get out there and find out quick.

Now that you've mentioned it, I'm going to watch the movie. Perhaps read the book. It's a saga, right?

[seabeyond]

30. why give them the money empowering hollywood to use explicit graphic drawn out rape of women as

further entertainment value? it was a line crossed into bring porn to mainstream movies and a nation of people excited and embracing it.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

51. I seldom watch American movies because they lend themselves to the degradation of women...

I tend to watch foreign movies at theaters and at home.

My most recent one was an Italian one, Mid-August Lunch. BEAUTIFUL movie about a man who lives with his elderly mom (taking care of her) and gets 'stuck" with a slew of older ladies when sons drop them off at his house. Funny and awesome.

[Snake Alchemist]

102. Yes. European movies such as the "Irreversible" or "Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down" show rape the right way

Long, graphic, and brutal. Why can't more American movies show this?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

107. You assume I watch everything. However, Hollywood's plastic, surgically-altered idiotic female

characters are king in the film world industry for portraying females like complete braindead, sexual idiots. Nothing quite compares with Hollywood's pornification of females. Hollywood's women are, for the most part, Barbies who say stupid things which we are supposed to interpret as 'funny,' spread their legs at the blink of an eye, and show their implants. Little else.

[Snake Alchemist]

130. That Erin Brokovitch was a real hussy. n/t.

[whathehell]

121. American independent movies?....Not so much.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

123. Indy movies are wonderful! And they use actors that are not the typical Barbie-cookie-cutter

I love indy movies.

[whathehell]

188. Yes, exactly...

I tend to like British stuff as well...n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

196. British stuff is wonderful. Love Britcoms. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

209. No, no sex in Britain, that's for sure.

[whathehell]

214. I love the dramas....Spooks, Waking the Dead, etc.

My husband and I became so enamoured of them that we

bought a multi-directional dvd player so that we could order

them directly from the UK instead of waiting for them to

come to America, either on television directly, or on Amazon.com

[Sarah Ibarruri]

218. What is a multi-directional DVD player? I've got to have one if it can get all

that from the UK!

[whathehell]

224. Oh, yes!...Glad to help out..A mult-directional DVD player will play DVDs

from all over the world!....I didn't realize it until I tried

to send a friend in Europe an American DVD

and found that it wouldn't play on his player....Sooo,

I checked it out and found that

dvds and videos from Europe and elsewhere

won't play on American DVD players -- and vice versa.

For reasons unknown, different parts of the globe are

broken up into "regions", such as Region One (USA..maybe Canada)

Region Two (Europe) and so on, so only a "multi-directional"

DVD will play "all" zones.

You can go to Amazon.com and buy one....They're not

very expensive...Ours cost about a hundred bucks,

plus shipping......So good luck!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

260. That's going to be my own personal Xmas gift to myself...

thanks!!

[whathehell]

263. Good for you!....Enjoy. n/t

[ceile]

153. Yes, it is a saga-3 books.

Brilliantly written and the Swedish movies are terrific. Not sure I'll go see the Hollywood version- they tend to ruin things.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

155. Yes, Hollywood does ruin things. I recently took my niece - she's 11 - to see Breaking Dawn, the

new Twilight movie in the series.

She was SO DISAPPOINTED!!! She said they 'embellished' everything, changed the whole story around, and what I noticed was that all the vampires were made out to look typically Hollywoodish. She wanted to see the book on film, and it wasn't.

[Control-Z]

222. Is that the one where the girl

gives up her life to birth the vampire's baby? My 18 YO told me that it was a far cry from the first two movies and wondered how shocked and pissed off a parent might be after taking their 13 YO to see it expecting it to be like the first two. She said it was sexually intense and vulgar with a terrible message.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

262. Vulgar, and not at all like the book. I'm not saying the book was a classic...

but hey, if you want to make the movie rendition of the book, for chrissakes, don't f**** go changing the whole damned story. And they changed the thing, put in fights that didn't exist in the book (I guess so males going to see it would be happy and all), and I sure as hell hate it when Hollywood does that shit.

Makes me livid when they re-write books, stories, etc. to sell more tickets at the box office. Or at least because some idiot THINKS it will sell them more tickets.

Capitalism can kiss my ass.

[JHB]

99. Are you aware that there is a charge for that article?

Sexuality & Culture is not an Open Access journal.
Unless you are a subscriber (personally or through some other entity), the charge for access to the article is US$34.95.

That limits the helpfulness of the link somewhat. Without coughing up the cash, we can only discuss what is said in the press release, not the paper itself.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

117. It's not an article. It's the complete, published study, if you desire to examine it. nt

[JHB]

140. It is a research journal article...

...which is why SpringerLink tells me:

Buy Online Access to this Article
Buy Online Access to this Article
Individual Article (Electronic Only)
USD 34.95


The use of the term "article"in this context is appropriate, and does not imply that it is not a complete study. My point was that examining it requires a commitment of a nontrivial amount of cash for anyone who does not already have access to the journal.

Did you not have this access problem when you read the full study?

[JHB]

267. That pricing is not unusual for academic journals

They aren't mass-market items, so it's not like they make their revenue on volume or with extensive advertising.

And that's a single-article fee. Subscribers to the full quarterly journal have a lower per-article price, and since most subscribers would be institutions (academic libraries, research groups), each subscription would be used by multiple people.

My issue was with the way the link was presented, as if critics hadn't bothered to look at the article itself with no acknowledgment of that barrier to self-investigation.

[Warren DeMontague]

158. So someone who has defined "sexualization" and "objectification"- two totally subjective, bs terms-

has (surprise!) found an "increase" in these bogus, subjective terms. Well, since I'm concerned about the proliferation of floogleshmitzes in public horgflattzery, I have comissioned a study, and since I have defined floogleshmitzes and horgflattzery to my satisfaction, I am eminently surprised when I can write authoritative-sounding "scientific" papers that clearly demonstrate a rising problem with 'em, never mind that they're completely fucking meaningless.



Among other reasons, this is why American jobs are in trouble. We keep churning out degrees in crap like "sociology" when we should be teaching students math, science and engineering. This sort of idiotic navel gazing doesn't produce anything except perennial outrage on the part of people who were outraged already.

[getdown]

233. you would not be confused by

the meaning of "objectification" if you were female, the subject of objectification in media and real life.

"This sort of idiotic navel gazing doesn't produce anything except perennial outrage on the part of people who were outraged already."

you and some others "who were outraged already" are bothered by a discussion of a study of an actual cultural phenomenon.

imagine the "math, science and engineering" graduate subjected to objectification, surrounded by cohorts accustomed to extreme, disproportionate hyper-sexualization of females ... imagine that was you or someone you care about.

[Hissyspit]

235. " We keep churning out degrees in crap like "sociology" when we should be teaching students math"

Nice right-wing nonsense talking point there.

[Warren DeMontague]

240. Yeah, the right wing just LOVES science.

Look, those are the facts. I'm sorry reality makes you (and, I guess, pretty much everyone else worked into a froth over the topic in the OP) so mad.

Engineers and people with math and science degrees are the people who are going to develop, for instance, the renewable energy technology which this planet needs in the coming century. Sociology majors are going to develop authoritative-sounding papers hand-wringing over bikini wearing women on Rolling Stone covers-- useful to nothing and no one except perhaps sociology professors teaching sociology students who hope, then, to become sociology professors themselves.

[Hissyspit]

252. Utter nonsense. You prove my point.

Last edited Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:17 AM - Edit history (4)

Complete ignorance of how culture, higher education and knowledge interact and work.

The right wing loves science when they think it can be exploited to make money.
And I'm not worked up in a froth over the OP. You got that wrong, too. I didn't say a damn thing about it. I am responding specifically to your comments on sociology degrees.

Yes, it's a right-wing talking point. Picking up where the Bush administration left off:

http://htpolitics.com/2011/10/10/rick-scott-wants-to-shift-university-funding-away-from-some-majors/

Rick Scott wants to shift university funding away from some degrees

By Zac Anderson, Herald-Tribune
Monday, October 10, 2011
Rick Scott's daughter has anthropology degree

- snip -

Leading Scott’s list of changes: Shifting funding to degrees that have the best job prospects, weeding out unproductive professors and rethinking the system that offers faculty job security.

- snip -

Scott said Monday that he hopes to shift more funding to science, technology, engineering and math departments, the so-called “STEM” disciplines. The big losers: Programs like psychology and anthropology and potentially schools like New College in Sarasota that emphasize a liberal arts curriculum.

“If I’m going to take money from a citizen to put into education then I’m going to take that money to create jobs,” Scott said. “So I want that money to go to degrees where people can get jobs in this state.” “Is it a vital interest of the state to have more anthropologists? I don’t think so.”

Top leaders in the Republican-controlled Legislature have expressed strong support for university reforms.

- snip -

ALLY TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2011 AT 6:16 AM
Rick Scott’s effort to stifle the study of anthropology reminds me of Chairman Mao’s policy to forbid the study of this subject in Communist China. What subject will be on the chopping block next? Mao also forbade the studies of psychology, sociology, and economics so new generations of students wouldn’t be educated enough to critique

MORE AT LINK

[getdown]

279. yup

he's the one with the agenda

[getdown]

278. froth away

really this is silly

and you ignored my comment, which points out the relevance to women and those who care about them. Do you?

[seabeyond]

16. "pornified."says it all. this is what we do to our women and girls today. and IF

a woman dare challenge the audacity of society to pornify her, she is attacked with no shame, almost always attack her sexuality.

neat little trick

[Sarah Ibarruri]

20. Yeah, don't you love it? Automatically 2 or 3 guys that love the pornification of women cry and

start whining that we're being mean feminists and hurting their feelings.

Not one thought forms in those 3 guys' brains to the effect that it's harmful, AND that unbridled capitalism is to blame. Not 1 thought about their daughters. They just want to pornify women, and by golly, they're going to demand it! End of story.

[seabeyond]

24. yup. AND

you know what is very special about you and i? we can so adamantly disagree on one thread, and respectfully agree and discuss on another, with no hard feelings. THAT is special .... to me.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

53. Yup!

Isn't it good?

I've always been that way. I hold no grudges except with two exceptions:

(1) Anyone that hurts or insults my family;
(2) Right wingnuts (they don't stand a chance).

[seabeyond]

56. i dont much indulge in grudges, either.

total waste of time and energy

[Sarah Ibarruri]

67. Absolutely. nt

[Zorra]

238. You know, Sarah,

It's just hopeless in some cases.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

259. Sometimes it sure seems that way.

But I'm a very energetic female, and I just don't quit trying. My bf says I can be a pest about things when I don't get my way. So, I go through life instructing people about these topics, whether they like it or not. lol

[Zorra]

281. I totally understand.

It often takes insistent, consistent, and repetitious instruction to get points about equality, objectification, and related issues across to many people.

Homophobia and misogyny seem to have common roots, and they are similarly enculturated in many societies.

They are so enculturated that homophobia and misogyny are somewhat an acceptable norm in many societies.

That seems to be why there are is a substantial number of people out there who are homophobic or misogynistic, and don't have a clue as to how they are being homophobic or misogynistic when they express these tendencies.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

282. I never thought about it, that homophobia and sexism could go hand in hand. I suppose the same

people who are homophobes probably hate women too.

I like to tell anti-feminist males that they hate women so much, they may as well seek their sexual pleasure from men. I know, I'm bad, but I like to make people like that mad. Maybe getting angry might reboot their brain. Who knows?

[Warren DeMontague]

302. and I think the people who get all angry over depictions of hetero sex are bugged by gay sex too.

Scratch a censor, you'll find -most likely- a religious fundamentalist, even if they're juggling their concepts to pretend that's not what's pushing them on.

[riverwalker]

19. two words

"Toddlers & Tiaras" not the cause, certainly, but the symptom. I have 3 granddaughters. Try to walk through a department store without silky nighties, bras for 6 year olds, black low cut cocktail dresses for 9 year olds, stuffed in your face. The "Brat" dolls, pouty spoiled shallow superficial icons. The turn this culture has taken is frightening, and dangerous. Too many Neanderthal pedophiles take it to the next level.
Women need to take our culture back.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

22. Toddlers and tiaras takes the pornification to women all the way to the level of little girls - sick

The media makes it available, and you know there's always going to be a pervert willing to do that to a little girl.

Toddlers and Tiaras is every pedophile's dream come true.

[The Straight Story]

28. Yeah, that's a pretty sick show (nt)

[PeaceNikki]

23. K&R.

After watching Miss Representation and following the work of PBG and SPARK, I am 100% convinced that we need to step it up and stop this madness.

[seabeyond]

27. with ya.... sistaaaah. i won't shut up, if you dont. lol

hell, on edit.... i wont shut up regardless if you do or not, lol

[PeaceNikki]

33. No, I will not shut up.

See also: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10163472

[seabeyond]

44. damn that is good. i was listening to a poster saying women leave the house to be looked at.

Last edited Wed Dec 28, 2011, 05:16 PM - Edit history (1)

i thought, no.... not really. many times, i get ready in the morning without any interest at being looked at. my appearance is solely for me. yet, inevitably there is the repetitive checking out. even now.... getting old. i am so god damn tired of men thinking i am on display for them.

because i brush my hair does not mean i am brushing my hair to attract some man. and i haven't for a couple decades.

thanks for the article. it is kick ass and i am gonna have to get in that thread

[whathehell]

125. These would probably be the same people who think women BREATHE for them. n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

46. PeaceNikki, I'm with you too. You're right. This bullshit needs to be stopped.

I actually bring this up in conversation. Often, I get the deer-in-the-headlights look from others who are off in la-la land and accepting like Biblical Truth whatever crap the media puts out.

[The Straight Story]

25. Well, two things. It is Rolling stone and women have more sexual parts than men

Two generally for guys and 4 for women, so the ratio sounds about right (topless man not sexualized, topless women are).

The mag target may also be more male oriented hence the difference numbers - they should take a look at Elle, 17, etc which is targeted towards women (and guessing they will find those sexualize women more than rolling stone (and I am guessing playboy does it even more so....just a hunch).

[Sarah Ibarruri]

32. Okay now...

I didn't do a study (I swear I didn't), but Rollingstone is not a man's magazine. It began as a magazine about music.

Playboy, Maxim, Men's Health, GQ, Esquire, Men's Fitness, Men's Journal, and Sports Illustrated (where women are shown in swimsuits, which is hardly a sport), are men's magazine.

Rollingstone has a basis in music, and has some kick-butt articles on politics.

[wryter2000]

78. Men's Journal

I'm a woman and a feminist and as outraged by all this hypersexualization of women.

I have to say that Men's Journal is outstanding at showing women as people. Yes, they may show up in swimsuits but in articles and ads about swimming and usually with men in swimsuits. The women are young and healthy (as well as slender), but so are the men. Occasionally, you'll see an ad with woman as object, but it's very rare.

I started reading my husband's Men's Journals after the dh died. I was astonished and very pleasantly at the respect the magazine shows toward women. I never expected that from a men's magazine.

And yes, I read it for the articles.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

79. In many ways, capitalism has made women's magazines even more nefarious since they are propaganda

And teens get started early nowadays in reading and viewing that crap.

If I listed articles in here from women's magazines, we'd all soon be puking.

[wryter2000]

81. You are so right about women's magazines

The covers down-thread are horrifying. "Am I normal 'down there'?"

[lapislzi]

34. ?? You puzzle me.

First off, any part can be sexual if treated the right way. Heck, the Victorians swooned if they saw a woman's ankle.

And, all you have to do is look at an Abercrombie ad to witness the sexualization of the male chest.

[The Straight Story]

43. I didn't write the study about what is/is not sexual

From what I was able to view of the study (have to pay to read it all) and the pics they used it is going along the 'traditional' sex lines (how someone is looking, how few clothes they have on and exposing 'parts', etc).

Perhaps women are actually more liberated now and not hiding their bodies in victorian gowns - is that a bad thing?

[lapislzi]

47. That was my whole problem with the fragment of the article

I don't know how they work their sliding scale of "sexualization-hypersexualization-pornification."

I don't take well to essays that don't define their terms at the get-go.

BTW, this woman thinks guy butts can be very sexual, and I think the media also treats them as such...if HBO is anything to go by.

And, the "liberated" women who are displaying their bodies tend to conform to the western idea of what is "beautiful." I betcha there are no fat/old/disable people shedding their clothes on the cover of Rolling Stone.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

115. I'm going to post about that. :) Are women who run around half naked, surgically-altered, and

live only to please men with sex, more or less liberated. It should be a very fun post.

What do YOU think? Is that liberation?

[whathehell]

126. Bullshit.....Sarah I. is correct....Rolling Stone is about MUSIC, it's not a "men's magazine". n/t

[maggiesfarmer]

29. is this a surprise?

follow the logic:

1. >90% of American's are heterosexual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States)
2. American men make more money than American women, suggesting they have more buying power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States)
3. many 'experts' seem to agree that men respond more to visual stimulation than women (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739403/)

so, if we know that most of the money is controlled by heterosexual men, and we know that men respond to visual stimulation, is there any wonder at why marketing departments would head in this direction?

apologies for citing wikipedia -- I wasn't trying to author a formal opinion piece, rather give anyone who wanted to check my info a starting point

[Sarah Ibarruri]

35. Oops! You didn't read the post or the article....

"1. >90% of American's are heterosexual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States) "

The above has nothing to do with the fact that women have been hypersexualized 10-fold in the past decade.

[maggiesfarmer]

59. correct, you have to follow the rest of my points as well

[seabeyond]

38. 1 study in the 80's with questionairre proved that out hence, it becomes fact. NOT reality.

when a nonbias study was performed in 2009, they found the opposite to be true. not only are women as sexually stimulated visually, but they will be sexually stimulated with any sex. where as a man will only be sexually stimulated with perferred gender. not that we will ever get beyond the reasoning that men are more visual, hence their continued need to pornify women




t is considered an almost forgone conclusion across research disciplines, among pop psychologists of all stripes, and in the general population that men are more “visual” than women when it comes to the way they get turned on. Men, we’re told, are visually aroused, whereas women just need a good sense of humor, and possibly a strong jaw, and they're on board.

This misguided, but pervasive belief can be linked to a host of other gender stereotypes which are further complicated by sexual politics and differences in social power. So arguments which should be challenged, such as the “fact” that men leer more than women do, that they objectify women’s bodies more than women do men’s bodies, and that they just can’t stop watching porn, are explained as somehow being related to a mix of genetics, patriarchy, and simple mindedness.

Challenging these ideas can be a monumental task. Researcher bias being what it is, science rarely offers support for these "counter-intuitive" ideas. What's worse, when research does start to complicate matters, the media, and even smart bloggers who should know better, distort the findings beyond recognition.

Nonetheless, a recent study published in the journal Brain Research is offering the first preliminary but important evidence to dispel the age old myth that visual imagery is more important to men than it is to women. And it's worth considering without hyperbole.

http://sexuality.about.com/b/2006/06/19/new-brain-research-challenges-the-myth-that-men-are-more-visual-than-women.htm

[lapislzi]

31. Despite my problems with the article, Sarah has the right of it.

Women = property is unique to capitalist society.

If one looks at representational art (I'm an art history MA, so this is easy for me), you will find the earliest sexualized depictions of women early in the Italian Renaissance, seat of the merchant states.

Subjects from mythology and the Bible became vehicles to portray women as objects for the delectation of the male. Suddenly, the Rape of the Sabine Women became a favorite of artists, as did a reclining nude Bathsheba, and a shamed Eve. I could go on, tying the subject matter to notions of chattel slavery that persisted well into the 20th century, but I think I'll stop here.

What we see today in the media is just the latest flowering of this trend.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

40. Thanks, lapislzi. Capitalism is the culprit here. It sells everything, people's lives, people's

souls.

[lapislzi]

48. Always enjoy your posts, Sarah

[Shandris]

87. Wait a moment. I can't let this one stand.

Women = property is unique to capitalist society.

...what? Did I miss a typo or something? Or are you considering anything that isn't communism to be capitalism?

You HAVE to have some qualifications for this statement, because on it's outside it's...non-sensical?

[lapislzi]

103. I actually qualify downthread

It's more about patriarchy than capitalism. Feudal society was patriarchical and treated women as chattel. True, as it was in many other pre-capitalist societies. Women as property is ancient. I should have been more clear.

It's capitalism that accelerated the objectification and fetishization of woman, as it did with so many other "objects." That, and the subsequent conflation of objectification and sexualization--woman as object for delectation of the male.

There was a paradigm shift around the time capitalism began to take hold in the west wherein women's roles shifted from strictly being brood mares to being sexual objects. This was a top-down phenomenon, beginning with the moneyed classes, filtering down to where you find it in every strata of western society today.

As well as art history, my background is in theoretical Marxism. So I apologize for my philosophical bias.

[Shandris]

173. Okay, yah, now it makes much more sense.

That was the disconnect I was having. Thanks for the clarification.

FWIW, I do agree with your assessment about the switch/acceleration.

[Delphinus]

110. That's really informative.

Something to ponder (the Bible, as well as the early Italian art). Thank you.

[bemildred]

39. A race to the bottom, in all it's obscene glory.

(no pun intended.)

[Sarah Ibarruri]

42. It's always the bottom line, and increasing profits till they blow up into the stratosphere. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

171. I know! Rolling Stone used to be such a family-oriented magazine.

I'll tell you, Hunter S. Thompson is outraged.

[bemildred]

271. LOL.

Good job.

[MuseRider]

41. Thank you for the article Sarah.

This has been bugging me for a long time. Of course this is not news to women but always good to know others notice and study it. Will it help? Nope, not one bit. Money talks and women are a big sell.

The backlash has been spectacular.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

45. Thanks, MuseRider. It might not make a huge difference now, but if all of us start to mention this

and point it out, soon it will be seen for what it is, selling even women's self-esteem and self-respect. What's at the bottom of women's degradation is always only money and the control and acquisition of it.

[MuseRider]

58. My experience with this

has been that most men really don't care. Many say they do but they prove otherwise. Some are absolute friends who work with us and trustworthy. Sadly it seems than many women don't care either. They will but by then they will have to refight all the battles we have already fought. I have been continually surprised at how successful the war against us became. Must be naive because I thought we had gained enough to move forward from that point. It is apparent to me that they will stop at nothing to bring us back to our knees. The good thing is that there are many of us who will never go back there. Again, thanks for your continual effort. Women like you keep us going.

[seabeyond]

61. i couldnt agree more with the whole of your post. absolutely. nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

62. Muse, I get very frustrated too. It's hard to discuss something that is so pervasive, and be told

that there's nothing wrong with it, particularly when the person saying there's nothing wrong with it doesn't have to live it. It makes me seethe sometimes.

That said, I have discussed this at length with 1 guy who explained to me that if I hadn't laid it all out in detail, he wouldn't have known BECAUSE no other woman had ever explained it, AND no other woman seemed upset by it.

The truth is, most people go blindly through life, noticing nothing, reducing themselves to nothingness, going along with the sheep. Am I wrong in this?

[seabeyond]

66. my husband said the same to me. nt

[MuseRider]

72. No you are not wrong.

What you do is the only real weapon we have. Your last line is the why it continues and that seems to be the reason for most if not all of the problems we face in this day and age.

Striving for individuality is not exactly something thought about much these days. Neither is caring about being respected as a human, most just assume they will be passed over or used most of their lives and the best way to deal is to forget that it makes any difference.

Keep going. We can never let it slide. Most of my efforts are in a different area but this is one I truly support and involve myself in. I just find it so much harder to discuss and deal with on a person to person level.

[NashVegas]

49. Rolling Stones Cover Descent Started In the Early 1990s

When more women suddenly came to the forefront of the rock world, Rolling Stone responded by shooting every woman that made it to their cover nude, partially nude, or in lingerie.

With one exception: Mellissa Etheridge got to wear a leather dress.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

52. Rolling Stone was used in this study, but honestly, they could've taken any magazine at all...

even women's magazines are encouraging degrading bullshit.

[NYC_SKP]

60. "even" womens' magazines or "especially" womens' magazines...

The media is that nefarious, I think you'll agree.



?d8bc3b

Interestingly, a scan of several Good Housekeeping covers indicates a recurring message: "You're FAT" (weight loss a common theme)



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Sarah Ibarruri]

63. Oh yes. Myriad articles telling women "how to give him better orgasms" and "how to look like a Ho"

Meanwhile guys get articles on politics and stuff.

[lapislzi]

68. Women's mags (Cosmo, etc.) discuss female orgasm

But in the context of the woman being responsible for either teaching her partner how to pleasure her, or for doing the job herself, the by-product of which is, you guessed it: delectation of the male.

Sub-text: even in the course of your relationship, you are on display at all times. Look the part.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

77. The woman as workhorse, robot, and mannequin. nt

[LanternWaste]

54. I wonder if that indeed is a cause or an effect of Madison Avenue's branding

These threads often seem to bring out some deep-rooted need for a poster or two to either a) equate a fictional parallel between the objectification of the sexes, or b) minimize both the cause and the effect of objectifying women.

I wonder if that indeed is a cause or an effect of Madison Avenue's branding of the woman's body in today's cycle of consumerism.

[lapislzi]

64. The female body was branded centuries ago

It's embedded in the bedrock of patriarchy and reaches its fullest flowering in capitalist fetishization of woman-as-object.

Don't blame Madison Avenue for trying to make a buck off a fundamental tenet of western culture. Don't get me wrong; I wouldn't try to defend Madison Avenue for any of its practices, but they're just riding the wave.

To some extent, there is objectification of young males for both hetero and homoerotic delectation (Madison Avenue doesn't miss a trick), but nowhere near on the scale of sexualization of the female.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

69. That's exactly it, and capitalism is raking in the dough now by degrading women. On the other hand

Capitalism has no soul, is amoral, and has only one goal, and that goal is not noble.

[lapislzi]

85. Now, HERE'S a cart-and-horse question:

How does one connect patriarchy (which I think is the bigger problem) to capitalism? We can see how capitalism feeds off patriarchy. But how is the reverse also true, and why?

Historically, in matricentri societies, one doesn't encounter male enslavement or objectification. Matricentric societies without exception are pre-capitalist. But not all pre-capitalist societies are matricentric.

(I use "matricentric" rather than "matriarchal" because I am specifically excluding power relations from my discussion--power is part of the problem)

In your post above, can the word "patriarchy" be substituted for "capitalism" and still mean the same thing?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

90. Hmm... good question! I think what's going on right now is unbridled capitalism

Capitalism capitalizes on anything and everything, and that certainly doesn't exclude things that are negative, criminal, wicked, degrading, humiliating, destructive, etc.

No question that the awful things were there to begin with, but capitalism catapults them into the stratosphere - for $$$$$$$

[seabeyond]

93. i think another part of the equation is in the 70's and 80's

Last edited Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:19 AM - Edit history (1)

women were really coming into their own, and as a whole women may not have handled that perfectly, making male feel irrelevant or less. that never works. i think this is a backlash with man taking ownership again. they can not win by putting woman back into the kitchen. that just is not going to fly. but i think there is a very concerted effort to gain dominance with the dehumanizing and pornifying of women to this extent and the accessibility to porn only allows it to manifest much faster.

[Tumbulu]

246. well said (nt)

[BlancheSplanchnik]

97. yep, objectification of the attractive female form is embedded deeply. Madison Avenue is made up

of people....mostly men, or at least in decision making/creative positions, though more women are entering that industry now. It is not the institution itself that continues the attitude, but the people functioning within the institution.

Attitudes inculcated early, without question, take many long years to change, and the change can only be seen as enough individual people change perspective to approach a critical mass.

Women also buy into the representation, as it is one of the few (only?) ways women achieve power in this society. "A woman's looks are her fortune" is an old cliche and carries much truth. I remember the powerful feeling I had when I was younger and fit the seductive look. Gave me a sense of control, power of being noticeable and important. I'd venture to say I'm not the only female who knows what that feels like, and who enjoyed it.

Girls need to be represented as powerful, valuable, in control and appreciated for many more qualities than merely this appeal to male desire.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

147. Yes, absolutely, to the suggestion that women are pushed to triumph only via their looks

It's horrific.

Here's a thought I had about that. Not only are there mostly men in Madison Avenue and in practically all fields, but there's another problem. As women entered the workforce, they had to ADAPT to a male-designed workforce, and that's the sort of workforce we have today, one in which women can succeed, sure, but only by inculcating within themselves the ideas of the male workforce - ruthless competition, disrespect hidden behind a neat and clean office, and, of course, women still have the albatross of having to look 'sexy' or they're treated 'differently' since women, even if they're smart, are measured by the 'are you Barbie or are you homely' stick by men.

I always found it bizarre that female CEOs go out at night, on dates, and to parties and have to have huge slits up the side, their breasts displayed openly, girdles (let's face it, they may have new names but what the hell else are they?), and that they still fight out there at the Macy's counter looking for that magical cream that will make them really good looking to men.

I don't think women and men have to be bookends, but neither should women have to struggle and climb an uphill battle to look like Barbie in order to be considered acceptable according to the dictates of what the media and Madison Avenue have said men should look for.

[Tumbulu]

247. agree!!! (nt)

[LanternWaste]

116. The elder branding does not deny the new branding... :

The elder branding does not deny the new branding...

And actually, I'll blame anyone for trying to make an amoral buck.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

65. It makes money. If you put a naked woman in front of a man, he'll spend money on it...

Never mind that it degrades the other gender, as long as corporations are raking in the dough, VIVA CAPITALISM!

[seabeyond]

73. it is pretty damn degrading to men, too. most just do not get the insult. nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

75. It is. As long as men have sperm, they will be creating daughters, and it'd be good if they were

conscious of what's done to them by the media - for money.

[seabeyond]

76. but what it does to men is take them away from their authentic self and creates a caricature

of who a man is. it is not a pretty picture. nor does it lead or provide a healthy, balanced life.

it also has to do with yes.... this is a daughter, wife, sister, friend.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

82. That's true too. It draws them as a mindless penis. Men are beautiful souls and capitalism gives

them a bad rap too. It's the money.

[seabeyond]

83. agreed. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

203. Sorry, "Mindless Penis" is my band name, and I have trademarked its usage.

If you want to use mindless penis™, you must pay royalties.

[getdown]

237. oxymoron

or redundant?

[Warren DeMontague]

241. Redundant Oxymoron is my OTHER band name.

I hate to break it to you guys, but this is gonna get expensive for ya.

[Major Hogwash]

275. Ha ha ha.

That's an instant classic.

[getdown]

277. rilly?

you are the one wasting your time

[Warren DeMontague]

295. rilly trooly.

[getdown]

298. for what reasons

is it so important to you to derail this topic?

[Warren DeMontague]

299. I'm not derailing anything. I'm objecting to the quantification of so-called "hyper-sexualization"

as if it is a piece of hard science that can be definitively measured.

[getdown]

303. no one claimed that

[Warren DeMontague]

300. Oh, and I work for Rolling Stone, and I'm terrifed that objections from a few DU members

may damage our numbers for 2012.

[getdown]

304. are you interested

in culture and its effects at all?

[Warren DeMontague]

307. "effects" like "I am harmed by the presence of a semi-naked human on a magazine cover"?

no.

[getdown]

310. it's an honest question

generally those interested in the effects of culture have some awareness that others are affected and theirs is not the only - or most correct - point of view.

oversimplifying the topic and pretending that's what is being said here, raises the question of why you're here at all.

you have no interest, you refuse to consider the actual topic or its importance to others, intentionally misread what they are saying and your mind is closed.

[Warren DeMontague]

312. and can you consider that this is yet another exercise in 'Merkin moral panic

rebranded, perhaps, but at the core not so different from Billy Sunday slamming the tent pulpit over knee-high skirts?

[getdown]

318. moral?

hmmmm, is it?

this has more to do with marketing than morals, i reckon

messaging in the media, wallpapering brains with images that, yes, do harm - and not only to women.




as stated in the first paragraphs at the OP link, which is free to read

"A study by University at Buffalo sociologists has found that the portrayal of women in the popular media over the last several decades has become increasingly sexualized, even "pornified." The same is not true of the portrayal of men.

"These findings may be cause for concern, the researchers say, because previous research has found sexualized images of women to have far-reaching negative consequences for both men and women."

[Warren DeMontague]

322. right. And that 'research' is even more bullshit than this is.

[getdown]

324. congratulations

on having the courage to step toward conversation and dip a toe in

sorry it's too deep for ya

[Warren DeMontague]

327. how about you post a link to the 'science' showing 'harm' from erotic images

I'll wait.

[getdown]

333. do you ever consider what it's like for someone beside yourself?

or maybe you have been harmed by this and don't acknowledge it, part of your need to shut down even thinking about it.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=83392

[Warren DeMontague]

345. No, that's a link to another post by you.

I said a link to the actual science showing how people are harmed by images.

[seabeyond]

313. he is afraid you may want to take his porn away

and i see you are new. welcome to du

[getdown]

316. this seems to be his porn

and thank you

[Warren DeMontague]

323. look, we get that pictures of nudity and sex make you mad

but don't try to pass it off as 'science'.

[getdown]

325. look, we that the topic of gender inequality make you mad

but don't try to twist the concepts around to suit your agenda

[Warren DeMontague]

326. you mean like arguing that 'pornification' makes breastfeeding less acceptable

despite the fact that breastfeeding rates are at a statistical high, that kind of concept-twisting?

[seabeyond]

328. that would be lying on your part. you leave out the issue of that thread. PUBLIC

breastfeeding.

blatant lying for your argument? because it is not like i didnt make that clarification to you more than once on the other thread.

right?

[Warren DeMontague]

329. and where's the data showing less PUBLIC breastfeeding?

I'll wait.

[seabeyond]

331. where is your acknowledgment of you post misrepresenting what i posted nt

[Warren DeMontague]

349. You're not going to get it, because I'm right.

Your goofy "I know what I know, namely that pornification and sexualization of the breast is interfering with breastfeeding" point is indicative of EXACTLY what I'm objecting to in the larger op- namely, trying to pass off opinion ---based on nothing more than a personal axe to grind--- as science and quantifiable fact pertaining to reality, irrespective of not just a total lack of data backing the point up, but even a large amount of data directly CONTRADICTING it.

Your point was totally fucking goofy, and it's clearly contraindicated by the facts- the so-called pornification you decry has come at the same time as an increase in breastfeeding. To argue that, somehow, all this breastfeeding is taking place indoors because pornification has made it MORE difficult for women to breastfeed outside... I mean, come on... to say you're grasping at straws is to be generous.

I can see why you'd want to change the subject, because your goofy assertion is being flatly refuted- but let me state again that there is NO evidence of decreased tolerance for breastfeeding, public or otherwise, breastfeeding rates are up, and if porn and sexy Rolling Stone covers have somehow interfered with ANYONE breastfeeding anywhere, it is NOT indicated in any available statistical analysis.

[seabeyond]

350. passing that off as a quote of mine? you quote it, put it in italics? that is beyond what i expect

even out of you. that is so fuckin in the face dishonest. you really had the audacity to make up a quote.

wow

[Warren DeMontague]

351. no, that's a paraphrase.

nice try, again, at changing the subject.

[seabeyond]

352. quotes and italics is a paraphrase to you? and it was not a parahrase. it was made up and wrong

at that.

dont take responsibility for your lies either. no surprise.

[Warren DeMontague]

353. aint that the pots calling the kettle black.

Anyway, (sigh) here we go again: quotation marks can also be used to paraphrase, summarize, or convey tone.

However, lest there be any confusion, I am hereby stating that that was NOT a direct quote, nor was it intended to be, nor given the context of the post is it reasonable to think that anyone WOULD imagine that to be a direct quote.

[seabeyond]

354. ya. right. nt

[getdown]

330. ah, another dip of the toe?

the effects of intensified sexualization of women in media compared to men, could include some folks having twisted ideas about bodies and natural processes, like birth and breastfeeding or women's rights to feed their children naturally when they need to.

couldn't it?

[Warren DeMontague]

344. it could, but there's no evidence it does. Because we are complex creatures who can walk & chew gum.

Otherwise, Male Ob-Gyns would become incapable of viewing their wives naked without thinking of them as patients.

Beyond that, as I have REPEATEDLY pointed out- increased levels of breastfeeding, increased LEGAL protections for breastfeeding, AND, yes, increased cultural acceptance of PUBLIC breastfeeding have ALL increased in recent decades, right along with the so-called "pornification" of society.

Sort of like how, despite much huffing-and-puffing about 'porn causes violence', rates for ALL violent crime are down in recent decades, as the availability of porn has increased.

Now, correlation isn't causation, but these statistical FACTS sure do poke a hole in the giant goofy balloons you guys are trying to float.

[getdown]

356. funny. every time you see a "giant goofy balloon"

you want to poke it

[Warren DeMontague]

361. what can I say

he turns me on

[getdown]

359. no evidence. really.

yes it is a link to a point you overlooked:



you wouldn't be confused about the meaning of "objectification" if you were female, the subject of objectification in media and real life.

imagine the "math, science and engineering" graduate subjected to objectification, surrounded by cohorts accustomed to extreme, disproportionate hyper-sexualization of females ... imagine that was you or someone you care about.

[Warren DeMontague]

360. No, that's something you wrote.

I asked for links to scientific studies proving harm from erotic images, and you sent me to another post containing more of your opinion.

I realize that you think your opinion here is just so brilliance laden that you want to offer it as a reference source, but honestly, you can just type it again and not pretend that it's an entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

[getdown]

363. you can find

the studies if you want to view them.

you can also consider the experience of those subjected to this cultural reality and find evidence there. Including men who are influenced by hyper-sexualization of females in media, even if they don't realize it.

[Warren DeMontague]

364. Ah, the old "go find it yourself". Bullshit. The "studies" are bogus "science" which is then used to

prop up more bogus pseudo-science like the attempt at quantifying completely subjective opinionated criteria, here in the OP.

The fact is, there is NO hard scientific evidence showing that, for instance, pictures of naked people fucking somehow cause "harm". Zero.

[getdown]

365. you don't seem really interested

esp because you intentionally misrepesent what is being said

waste of time ::

[Warren DeMontague]

366. I'm very interested.

Again, post a link to the scientific studies you're repeatedly referenced, and I promise I will take a look at them.

Otherwise, though, you got nothin'.

[getdown]

371. um

what?

"Again, post a link to the scientific studies you're repeatedly referenced," makes no sense, since I haven't

you don't need studies, you need to study some basic classes in gender studies, media studies. pretending there are no cultural impacts from media messagin is silly.

but preventing discussion of cultural interest is bullshit

[Warren DeMontague]

372. Right. Again, another case of "I know what I know, because I know it"... except that's not science.

You want to reference the "previous research" that "has shown sexualized images of women to have far-reaching negative consequences for both men and women", fine- then let's see it. The RESEARCH. No, not a Womens Studies Class that says "this is bad because we say its bad and we all know it's bad"-- that's, again, subjective opinion. Not SCIENCE.

The "study" in the OP is being presented as SCIENCE. It's not. If it was being presented as what it is -again, subjective opinion- there wouldn't be an issue.

You can't show me scientific proof that, for instance, nude pictures cause "harm", because it's NOT THERE. "A Consensus at the Smith College Womens Studies Department Says So" doesn't constitute scientific proof.

[getdown]

373. i'm sorry

wasn't it presented as social science? documentation of a period of cultural study?

it documents an increase in a particular media portrayal of females compared to males.

what insane claims are you protesteth too much?

Your challenge is interesting. but how do you back up your insistence that there is no effect? you can't?

and you know better. So why bother (others)?

What's the deal, bub?

[Warren DeMontague]

382. The onus is on you to back up the claim. You can't.

You referenced it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=87737

and now you're backpedaling. Sort of like desperate creationists, saying "okay, well, prove we weren't intelligently designed".

No, that's not how science works.

[getdown]

386. total

bs

[Warren DeMontague]

397. exactly.

thank you for finally agreeing.

[Delphinus]

111. Agree strongly.

Excellent point.

[slackmaster]

55. Mexican TV channels were way ahead of the curve on this

[seabeyond]

57. it is also way ahead of the curve in a patriarchal misogynist society. so? nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

71. Mexico is what I view as a perfect capitalistic society - anything goes - mass poverty, mega-wealthy

decaying towns and cities, so much crime it's dangerous to set one foot outside the home, etc. Perfect capitalistic society.

[chrisa]

80. Yup, and the honest businessmen put more food for the birds

in the middle of the desert every day - usually by decapitation or multiple gun shot wounds.

Welcome to Ron Paul's rugged society that emphasizes 'the individualistic American spirit.'

[Sarah Ibarruri]

84. Exactly. nt

[BlancheSplanchnik]

86. I stopped buying Rolling Stone YEARS ago, because of their brazen imbalance

So sick of women being visible and valued solely as seen through male sexual interest.

Men can not understand what it feels like to be invisible except as a young, hot receptacle.

This pornification/dehumanization of women directly ties to hatred and violence against women, and women's own self-loathing problems.

Is it any wonder that "the CHANGE in how intensely sexualized images of women -- but not men -- have become" over the last several decades coincides with the startling increase in misogynistic crimes against women?

I'm so sick of yelling about it for years and never being heard. I've reduced my response rate to this subject when it gets brought up here at DU, because I'm so sick of beating my head against a wall.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

98. Let me ask you a question. Have you noticed an increase in shows about women tortured to death?

I don't think it's just me, but there's been a vertiginous jump in shows about sociopaths (CSI, Criminal Minds, etc. etc. ad nauseam), and I'd wager to say 99 % of the shows are about how women are kidnapped, raped, tortured, their skin peeled off, etc. etc.

I know this has nothing to do with the topic at hand of how capitalistic it is to present women pornified in the media, but I think (like you said) directly related.

[lapislzi]

106. We could start a whole new discussion thread about the link between porn and violence*

I don't watch those shows, but I'm aware of the trend. Even the clips are nauseating.

And guess what? Companies buy advertising on those shows.

*We'd start a flame fest.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

135. Yes! It would get crazy. the same 3 or 4 guys would be all nervous and jittery, proclaiming we are

man-haters!

[Occulus]

341. Well when you say things like

"If you put a naked woman in front of a man, he'll spend money on it"

all of us guys, heterosexual and homosexual, who would not do so see that as a pretty sexist statement- the sort a man-hater would use.

[Warren DeMontague]

170. sort of like how people would freak out over a thread saying abortion=breast cancer

either because people are uptight and like flame fests, or because like "porn=violence" the claim is utter bullshit.



People are so intolerant of unscientific, agenda-driven bullshit. Why is that?

[marzipanni]

305. Breastfeeding=less breast cancer

But...
<snip>
The LESS women breastfeed, the LESS people get to see the real purpose of breasts. At the same time media everywhere touts the view of female breasts as sexual. That in turn makes it harder for women to breastfeed, since many of the reasons for not breastfeeding are linked to the sexualization of breasts.

So the less women breastfeed, the harder it becomes for women to breastfeed. We have a cycle that self-promotes the view that the main purpose of female breasts is for something else than feeding babies!

http://www.007b.com/breast_obsession.php

[seabeyond]

306. as the race driver said... nasty. think when a woman sticks tits out for him, he is saying nasty?

not even.

you are right.

in the 60's and 70's i often came upon a mom breastfeeding. talking to my father, he can remember back to the 40's and 50's the same. this was the time of all this uptight prudery so many on the board go on about. yet, breastfeeding was nothing. just nature. what women did. and no one made a stink about it.

today, in all our progression, it is .... nasty.

man has even taken ownership of the breast, from the babies....

that in and of itself says something.

[Warren DeMontague]

309. funny, I'm in favor of breastfeeding AND I'm not mad about sex in magazines

I'm also not a homophobe-- despite the fact that I disagree with the premise of this thread.

Lotta straw men romping around these parts.

[seabeyond]

315. funny, ... then i am not addressing you, am i? nt

[Warren DeMontague]

317. guess not, huh.

there you go.

[getdown]

376. Come back when

you find a male version of this

[Warren DeMontague]

383. wait... Phish are coming back?

[getdown]

387. nice try

where's the other dude and the ice cream?


thanks for proving the point of the OP

[seabeyond]

391. hubby and i went thru this thread this morning. got a chuckle at some of it.

used the picture you provided as an example. easy enough for hubby to get it.

tells me not really that hard, in the obvious.

[getdown]

392. yes

that pic also a reminder that Rolling Stone usedta be about music and musicians mainly and that's what was on the cover, not cheesy TV stars or manufactured pop stars.

[seabeyond]

401. as a matter of fact,this morning i asked if he wanted to check out du. there are forums he would

find interesting. he isn't interested. he isn't into social internet communities. not his thing

and he is a computer tech that just recently sold his computer company, so i hardly think he is dependent on me to navigate the net

nice insult, jab and totally wrong and off base. go figure. like that is a surprise.

but he did get a chuckle from your lack of satisfaction.

[seabeyond]

403. hm... well, if you ever got out of the sex threads, you would hear plenty over the years

me discussing his computer business, his computer knowledge and my total lack of computer ability.

hide yourself in only sex threads and you will be limited in knowledge. what can i say.

[seabeyond]

404. did the study suggest they never sexualize men? i think not. i believe your argument is a strawman

further, you are arguing, passionately, something you have argued against this whole thread, lmfao. focus warren. really, focus.

[getdown]

408. you go

in circles

from the OP
"First, representations of both women and men have indeed become more sexualized over time; and, second, women continue to be more frequently sexualized than men. Their most striking finding, however, was the CHANGE in how intensely sexualized images of women -- but not men -- have become. "

[Warren DeMontague]

308. "many of the reasons for not breastfeeding are linked to the sexualization of breasts" - um, ok

and this authoritative-sounding statement is backedup with what data? and according to whom?

How about this for hard statistical science- rates of breastfeeding are WAY up from 40 years ago... a trend that dovetails nicely with the alleged "hypersexualization" and "pornification" of society that has so many in such a tizzy.

So how does that work, exactly?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

108. yes, I have.

I must admit, I like those shows, some of them anyway...I suppose that's highly hypocritical of me.....but some of them are usually very well written and genuinely suspenseful........

Anyway, aside from that bit of self-disclosure......

Yes. I think that showing females as the de facto victim reinforces a blase attitude towards violence against women, general contempt towards us, and an expectation that females are victimizable, that females are less human. Actually, imagery or text that automatically conflates objecthod with femaleness, and victimhood with femaleness are far more numerous than just TV crime shows. For one example that I saw recently, I went into a store that is sponsored by the local organization that supports developmentally disabled adults and children. The walls featured many photos of kids and adults who benefit from their enrichment programs. I found it interesting that of approx. 20 photos, all except one were of disabled girls gazing winsomely into the camera. Not doing anything, merely sitting passively, guaged to pull our heartstrings. The one picture of a young man with Down's Syndrome showed him not looking into the camera, but at his hand as he played guitar, obviously enjoying himself and his sense of pride in accomplishment.

Quite a difference, eh? I see this dichotomy all the time---girls/women shown as passive objects, nothing intererstnig or engaging about them EXCEPT their cuteness/winsomeness/prettiness/sad victimhood playing on our emotions. Compare to imagery of boys/men, who are shown as persons. Guys involved, active, engaged...to be viewed and admired as impactful human beings.

Marginalizing women in this way implants a notion that we are fair game for projections of aggression. Look at so-called gender neutral discussion boards, particularly ones popular with teen to twenty year olds. The hatred directed against girls is very noticeable. Popular memes exhibit a typical contempt and singular sexualization for anything female as well---look at UrbanDictionary.com for examples of what I mean.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

122. Marginalization and contempt toward anything female is a good way to put it.

Thank you for explaining this so well.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

143. thanks for all your excellent replies here!

my major hot button topic!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

145. Same to you! I think you must be an instructor on the topic, or a writer! nt

[BlancheSplanchnik]

283. Awww, thanks!

no, I'm not. I'm a Sign Language Interpreter at a college, so I'm in the academic environment. I guess I'm a frustrated academe!

I just like big words, and analyzing stuff--and I've had radar on for sexism in media since I was 5!! Wooo, that's a good 49 years ago, now. Guess that makes me an expert. Or an ex-spurt. However you prefer.....

[Sarah Ibarruri]

284. Sign language interpreters rock. I attended a wedding with a sign language interpreter.

Up in Rochester. The 2nd biggest community of the deaf, I believe.

Groom was deaf, bride was hearing. LOVELY!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

285. Wow wow wow!! I AM in Roch!

that's where I work! Rochester Institute of Technology!

We're da biggest, now, I think

Wouldn't be surprised if I knew the interpreter or or some of the Deaf people there.....

[Sarah Ibarruri]

286. OH MY GOD. NO WAY.

The priest was a deaf guy, short guy in his 50s, tiny bit on the heavy side. VERY funny!!! Rochester is awesome. Wish I lived there. (sigh)

[BlancheSplanchnik]

289. YES WAY!! That would be Father Ray!

Wow, haven't seen him in a long time. He IS hilarious!!! I LOVE him!

I've lived about an hour away from work for years, so I've lost touch with a lot of friends, including my Deaf friends. Gotten out of touch with the Deaf community in general, actually...

Roch is pretty good, yeah ....the winter is always a caveat, but this winter is so MILD, it's been a lot easier to deal with.

Probably less insane than Florida...... (I don't mean the weather )

[Sarah Ibarruri]

290. Father Ray is a sweetiepie! Everyone feels good around him.

Love Rochester. Yes, the winters are brutal, but it's a really nice area, and APPLE country!

[maggiesfarmer]

112. Blanche, please explain and cite your source

"the CHANGE in how intensely sexualized images of women -- but not men -- have become" over the last several decades coincides with the startling increase in misogynistic crimes against women"

the article that Sarah cited refers to a trend over 50 years of women becoming increasingly sexualized. I'm not aware of an 'increase in misogynistic crimes against women' over the same time frame. actually, I was under the impression that violent crime (including those against women) was trending down over the last 30 years. Certainly the numbers suggest this is the case for forcible rape. I'm open minded enough to realize that many more crimes than rape could fall under that umbrella -- help me out here -- which ones show a rise over the last 50 years?

note: I'm pulling data from here (http://www.lowtechcombat.com/2010/12/50-year-trends-in-violent-crime-in-us.html). the webpage author claims that his info came from here (http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/index.cfm), but I didn't vet that.

TIA

[BlancheSplanchnik]

138. Here are just a few of many. Also note one that *directly* corrects your impression:

"I was under the impression that violent crime (including those against women) was trending down over the last 30 years. Certainly the numbers suggest this is the case for forcible rape." : [font color= red]Among all violent crimes, domestic violence, rape, and sexual assault showed the largest increases. Except for simple assault, which increased by 3 percent, the incidence of every other crime surveyed decreased.[/font] (from second article listed here, where I have bolded this excerpt.)

Study finds violence against women increases
CDC finds 1 in 4 beaten, 1 in 5 raped
An exhaustive government survey of rape and domestic violence released Wednesday affirmed that sexual violence against women remains endemic in the U.S. and in some instances may be far more common than previously thought.
From Our Press Services
Posted December 15, 2011 at midnight
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/dec/15/violence-against-women-increases/


US: Soaring Rates of Rape and Violence Against Women
More Accurate Methodology Shows Urgent Need for Preventive Action
DECEMBER 18, 2008
(New York, December 18, 2008) - A new government report showing huge increases in the incidences of domestic violence, rape, and sexual assault over a two-year period in the United States deserves immediate attention from lawmakers and the incoming administration, Human Rights Watch said today. The statistics show a 42-percent increase in reported domestic violence and a 25-percent increase in the reported incidence of rape and sexual assault.
...
The National Crime Victimization Survey, based on projections from a national sample survey, says that at least 248,300 individuals were raped or sexually assaulted in 2007, up from 190,600 in 2005, the last year the survey was conducted. The study surveyed 73,600 individuals in 41,500 households. Among all violent crimes, domestic violence, rape, and sexual assault showed the largest increases. Except for simple assault, which increased by 3 percent, the incidence of every other crime surveyed decreased. <--- emphasis mine
...
The National Crime Victimization Survey is conducted every two years, with data gathered in phone calls made to a sample of households across the United States. Due to criticism from experts in the subject, the survey's methodology was adjusted in 2007 to capture more accurately the incidence of gender-based violence. The authors say in the report that the higher numbers may reflect the new, more accurate methodology rather than an actual increase.
http://www.hrw.org/news/2008/12/18/us-soaring-rates-rape-and-violence-against-women


A federal study shows there has been a significant spike in violent and sexual attacks against women by an intimate partner.
The Center for Disease Control revealed that 24 people a minute in the U.S. are victims of rape, physical violence or stalking.

One in four women surveyed said they had been victims of severe physical violence by a boyfriend or husband.

One in five said they had been raped in their lifetime.

And 1.3 million women said they had been raped in the previous year, a figure that's several times higher than other studies.

"I didn't realize it was that high," said Kappy Scholla, a Virginia resident. "But that's the type of number we need to hear to maybe make people realize that it is an epidemic. It is real and it needs to be fixed."

A spokesperson for RAINN, the nation's largest organization combating sexual violence, says most sex assaults are not reported and the vast majority of perpetrators will never see a jail cell.

"I remember back in the 70's when the police didn't even come to domestic violence cases," said Carmen Jones, a D.C. resident. "And now they do. And if women have confidence in the system and confidence that they will be believed then they'll come forward."
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2011/12/study-shows-rise-in-violence-against-women-70334.html


Sexual Violence Against Women Soldiers on the Rise and Under Wraps
A recent investigation into the alleged suicide of US Army Private Lavena Johnson has brought to the attention of many, the terrible sexual violence that female soldiers encounter while fighting for our country. However mainstream media has done an excellent job in covering up 19-year old Lavena Johnson’s story, as well as the incredible rise in suicides that have resulted from female violence.
...
Lavena’s story is strange and twisted but stories like Lavena’s are sadly becoming more and more common in Afghanistan and other war-zones occupied by US troops. The mysterious deaths of female soldiers coincide with an increase in reported sexual violence against women in the military during a time when women are joining like never before. In 1970, female soldiers made up 1 percent of the entire armed forces; today, that number has jumped to roughly 15 percent, nearly 200,000 in all. As the numbers of female troops grow, the U.S. Department of Defense’s own reports bear out the rising problem of military sexual assaults in war zones: up 26 percent from 2007 to 2008, and another 33 percent over the following year.
Title: Sexual Violence Against Women in the US Military: The Search for Truth and Justice
Publication: Digg.com, July 14th, 2011
http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2011/08/27/sexual-violence-against-women-soldiers-on-the-rise-and-under-wraps/

[maggiesfarmer]

159. thanks for taking the time to reply

first, I don't want to sound like I'm suggesting violence toward women isn't a problem. it is, it's a huge problem and as a father and husband of females I find it abhorrent.

with all due respect, I have to point out a few issues that you didn't clear up. The assertion you made that I questioned your source of, was regarding a correlation between the trend over the last 'several decades' of increasing 'hyper-sexualization' of women and a 'startling increase in misoynistic crimes towards women.' you responded with a number of links and excerpts that fall short of explaining your assertion. here's my concerns:

1. http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/dec/15/violence-against-women-increases/
This article and misleading headline remind me of tactics commonly employed by Fox. the headline states "Study finds violence against women increases" but the article doesn't discuss trends at all, only absolute data. the article further casts doubt on the study's ability to gauge trends by stating "The surveyors elicited information on types of aggression not previously studied in national surveys, including sexual violence other than rape, psychological aggression, coercion and control of reproductive and sexual health." Given the discrepancy between the headline and the content, I checked the study itself and it explicity mentions that to compile trend data, the study would have to be repeated and call out that "Research is necessary to identify new trends in violence as well as strategies for prevention and intervention."

2. http://www.hrw.org/news/2008/12/18/us-soaring-rates-rape-and-violence-against-women
This article spefically calls out data collected over a TWO YEAR PERIOD, 2005 to 2007. this is not supportive of claims to a 50 year trend. Note my source shows the same 50 year trend as claimed by Sarah's original article shows these two data points in the context of 1949-2009 data -- not to be argumentative but what is the logic that led you to conclude the two year study you reference is more indicative of a 50 year trend the data from the DOJ?

3. http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2011/08/27/sexual-violence-against-women-soldiers-on-the-rise-and-under-wraps/
This article describes a horrible situation that happened to a particular woman and goes on to describe that as the number of women in the military has grown since 1970, so has the number of assaults on those women. This is a horrible situation that has gained increasing national exposure in recent months. I hope the military does something about it. However, nothing in the article supports your claim of a 50 trend of 'startling increase in misoynistic crimes towards women'. the article actually suggests the correlating factor is an increase of female population in the military.

To be clear, I'm not questioning that violence toward women persists as an issue, I'm questioning whether or not there is data over a 50 year period that shows a correlation between violence toward women and increased 'hyper-sexualization' in the media.

[Quartermass]

89. The more people complain the more it'll happen.

[seabeyond]

91. really? so we should just shut up? how has that been working for us? oh wait

it isnt working at all.

sit down, and shut up.

never been my answer to a problem or issue.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

92. Please explain nt

[Quartermass]

105. In the entertainment world, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Because it'll get people to talking about it, and when people talk about it, the more people will want to see it.

That means more people will see it and it means more money for them.

That's how they measure success, is by how many people see it, and how much money is spent seeing it.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

114. You're right that it's said better bad publicity than none at all, HOWEVER, it is possible to label

capitalistic industries for what they are (the bad guy), and get them to change somewhat.

Accuse them of being racist, bigoted, etc. and they are terrified of losing money.

I don't know how it works to accuse the media of being anti-woman, since so many men are so delighted with the pornification of women, and would just not want to participate in making the media stop.

Not just that, the moment a woman so much as mentions the pornification of women in the media, A FEW men jump a mile high and get:

angry
defensive
accusatory (calling women 'feminists' - as if that were something bad lol)

Also, SOME women are bobble-heads and will nod along with those CERTAIN guys and say, "YES, YES, MY GUY IS RIGHT! THERE'S NO PORNIFICATION OF WOMEN. YOU ARE JUST ANGRY FEMINISTS THAT HATE MEN!"



I am a feminist, and I ADORE men. However, as a woman, the pornification of women makes me sick to my stomach.

[seabeyond]

120. separate themselves from the oppressed group and be accepted as part of the positive majority

"So it seems that women, just as other oppressed groups, often perpetuate the same prejudicial thoughts or behavior that they’ve experienced in a way to separate themselves from the oppressed group and be accepted as part of the positive majority. Competition is formed in order to be ingratiated to those in positions of power or those seen as possessing positive characteristics. And yet, Steinem explains, when an opportunity is created for the sharing of experiences, a sense of community emerges. A sense of sisterhood, if you will. "

i think this is a very real issue. especially with our young girls until they are secure in their own womanhood and say.... enough

[Sarah Ibarruri]

128. That explains Bobble Head Women perfectly. They want to side with what they interpret as 'victors'

Someone in my family is like that. She claims to LOVE football just so her husband will admire her. However, I can see her eyes darting around as she sits next to her husband pretending to ADORE his favorite game. She's DYING to get out of there, but she pretends. It's too funny.

She claims to 'hate' feminists, and says they're not 'feminine.' Ahem. Actually, if one were to judge her on a scale of female characteristics, she's not *that* 'feminine,' but you would think she were the prototype of super-femininity, the way she nods to everything her HIGHLY ANTI-FEMINIST hubby spews. It's actually quite funny. She gets into a lot of binds with that attitude.

I can't imagine what goes through her brain, and maybe I'm just better not knowing!

[Quartermass]

129. If you adore men, well, I know some feminists who would negatively criticize you for that.

However, it seems to me that true feminism is about fairness and equality between the genders, and should not be about hostility and bigotry.

I just wish the extremists would find something else to call themselves other than feminists, because it confuses the issue.

And it doesn't really work to call the media anti-women. If it did, things would be very different.

But I personally believe the real reason they do it is to spite the prudish conservatives.

[seabeyond]

131. and i do not know a single feminist that would have an issue with adoring men. especially as many

of us are raising sons.

this pretty much tells du your position on womens issues. thank you for letting us know where you stand.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

133. Nothing more wonderful than a male body, is there? If there is, I don't know it!

Yum!

Anyway, I'm sure there are all types on this planet. So frikkin' what?

Nonetheless, let me clarify once and for all here that the definition of feminism is not 'man-hater.'

The only people I've ever heard that sort of thing from, are the same 3 or 4 loser guys that immediately jump up to defend porn and the pornification of women, and tremble whenever the word feminism is mentioned. They're really into this definition of feminist as a man-hater. I don't think I could spend 5 minutes with one of those miserable males that get so defensive about feminism before whacking him into some semblance of normalcy. lol

[Quartermass]

137. You should read Valeri Solanas's Scum Manifesto. That's the kind of thing I've often encountered.

And you should also read " A Rapist's View of the World: Joss Whedon and Firefly";

http://users.livejournal.com/_allecto_/34718.html

They will both open your eyes to the kind of extremism out there from some women against men.

This is the Scum Manifesto:

http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm

These women call themselves Feminists.

But I do agree with you, I just want you to be aware that there is also the flip side of the coin.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

144. Okay, I went there...

I went to womynkind.org and found it's a website by a woman named Nancy Hulse.
She said this:

"Thank you for visiting my site! My name is Nancy Hulse, and I am a performance artist and educator who produces live, Multi-Media programs dealing with the issues of violence against women."

I saw the book by Solanas on her site. So what? Want me to start listing all kinds of trash on the net and everywhere else which is anti-female? Betcha I can beat you there, since just about everything sexually objectifies females. One book and you're all upset about all feminists on the planet. Why?

As for the second link, was that about Joss Whedon. They're criticizing the guy's portrayal of women, which again sexually objectifies women. So? What's bad about pointing out such things? Isn't he a comic writer after all? Comics notoriously sexually objectify women.

And my original post. Was that, in your view, something by a man-hating feminist?

[Quartermass]

152. You should really read through the whole thing.

The article calls Joss Whedon a rapist and calls Firefly a rapist's fantasy and everything in that series is about his and all males' rape fantasies, not about sexually objectifying women.

And I've seen all episodes and own the DVD set and, well, the writer of that article is just nuts.

And no, I don't consider the original article you posted about man hating.

Joss writes comics now, but he started out writing screenplays.

His most famous television series is Buffy The Vampire Slayer.

You really should read both articles thoroughly before coming to conclusions about them.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

154. Well, you gotta admit...

It's pretty much about, oooh look at that one's legs, that one's breasts, I want to @#$, that one's behind hair, her this, her that, her whatever.

Someone COULD interpret that as some sort of unhealthy obsession, and yet it's commonplace in this society. It all just promotes the looking at women as sex objects. NO? YES?

Maybe you don't see it that way. Maybe to you that's just the way things are on this planet, and, well, it's all good.

At least I'm glad you don't consider the OP to be man-hating. It isn't.

As for my reading. I DID read enough. Plenty! I may have missed 1 paragraph or so. However, maybe that one paragraph I missed might have had the most important info. I don't think so, though.

[REP]

225. You are aware that pretty much nobody takes Valerie Solanas, a mentally ill woman, seriously

Or I should say, took. She died nearly 30 years ago, having spent much of her life in mental hospitals. She does not, and she herself never intended to, represent the feminist movement.

[Quartermass]

226. You'd be surprised.

When I was in college I knew this one girl who believed every single word of it, and she was often making nasty comments about men.

So she can't be the only one.

But no, I am not claiming that she is representative of the feminist movement, but women like her do call themselves feminists.

[REP]

228. Yeah, and I knew this guy once who couldn't trust anything that bled every month and didn't die

First liar doesn't have a chance. Just sayin'.

One girl you knew in college. Reminds me of another saying: Anecdote is not the plural of data. Again - just sayin'.

[randome]

94. But is it really capitalism? Or simply culture?

Or does capitalism with a country as large and diverse as ours result in this kind of a culture?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

104. There's a culture thing, yes, but capitalism just drives it in, seals it, makes it solid. The media

is the strong propaganda arm of capitalism. It seduces, it controls, and it even creates our culture. We cannot get away from it. It's pervasive.

[Warren DeMontague]

169. heh heh heh

[closeupready]

109. India and China are both far larger, very diverse, as well.

Yet, they seem not so quick to commercialize sex.

There goes your theory.

[randome]

127. Eh. India, for all its different religious viewpoints, is still a very religious country.

And religion is nearly always associated with having the 'heebie-jeebies' about anything related to sex.

And how diverse is China really? The vast majority of its population is still composed of Asians, right? Isn't America more racially diverse?

Hey, I could be wrong.

[NCTraveler]

96. A fairly strong majority of its readers are men….

According to Rolling Stone 60% of their current readers are male. Not sure about using Rolling Stone as the base for this type of study.

[Fire Walk With Me]

100. X(

[Sarah Ibarruri]

101. Hmm... :) nt

[Fire Walk With Me]

148. I believe that we are not falling into negativity, in general,

that the bad things we see increasing are simply a spring cleaning of sorts. That we're choosing a new, better way to live, and that the old ways will have to become very obvious for us to finally and truly become disgusted with them and to say NO! as one.

In the mean time it sucks, but I do believe this is the process.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

149. That's definitely what I'm striving for! nt

[seabeyond]

150. interesting perspective.

though you leave your opinion vague, and anyone can insert whatever into that, lol, it is interesting. in a vague sorta way

[Fire Walk With Me]

175. Anything more specific would be off-topic, but I hope the Trend will quickly become visible.

[Taitertots]

113. You are making claims that are not reportedly in the journal article...

i.e. that "the media" is increasing the sexualization of women. Too bad we can't see the journal without paying $35, http://www.springerlink.com/content/k722255851qh46u8.

Just reading the article it is clear that they are using arbirary and non-objective metrics to measure sexuality.

[dawg]

118. We're a dysfunctional society when it comes to sex and relationships.

Men and women are beginning to see each other as "things" and not as people.

It's really scary to me.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

119. Scary to me too, and it is dysfunctional. Thank you for pointing that out. nt

[seabeyond]

124. you got it right on. the issue here, is one gender may feel they have a oneupmanship

but that is never the reality. because another will feel the disrespect and in turn there will be a reaction, repercussion, regardless if it is conscious or unconscious.

[Soylent Brice]

146. K&R

[Eliminator]

151. ROLLING STONE covers?!?!

Excuse me as I ROFL.

That right there discredits the study. Maybe they can do a study on Playboy covers next.

And what, excatly, does it mean for anyone (man OR woman) to be "more sexualized"? Is the issue about showing more skin? Maybe more breasts and legs? News flash: Human beings are sexual creatures.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

157. Do you wear cleavage around your groin when you go out, so women can feast themselves on peeking

at your private organs?

Are you expected to?

Do you find that magazines are encouraging you to wear these outfits?

Are other men wearing cleavage around their groin? To expose their pubic hair and be more... oh, APPEALING?

Do women judge you on whether or not you're exposing enough of your ding dong or not?

And more importantly, are women judging you on whether or not your ding dong looks good or rather mediocre?

I doubt it. But, hello, that's what women live daily. Do you now understand? Or are you busy googling an outfit like that?

I rest my case. And excuse me while I go laugh my ass off.

[Warren DeMontague]

161. My wife & I saw quite possibly the longest penis shot I've ever seen in a motion picture last night

I mean, serious dick.



I meant to be outraged, but I guess I forgot.

[Warren DeMontague]

162. Whoever heard of SEX in ROCK AND ROLL??!?!?! What's next????

Music should be wholesome. Like this.

[Jennicut]

183. I love the Wiggles. Too bad my kids have kind of outgrown it.

Now we have to watch the Disney Channel all the time.

[Warren DeMontague]

190. After I saw Bill O'Reilly do a guest appearance on their show

they went down a few notches in my book.

[Warren DeMontague]

156. ZOMG! Think of the Children!

Rolling Stone! Sex! Nekkid Ladies!



HALP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Warren DeMontague]

160. I'll say it again: This is why we're getting our ass kicked by China and India. We churn out degrees

in "sociology" while they're teaching science and math, and churning out engineers.

[Modern_Matthew]

187. I resent that sociology remark...

As a sociology student.

I'll go download the latest Playboy and let off some steam.

[Warren DeMontague]

191. I took soc classes in college, too.

However, having spent a few decades in the real world, I can safely say that I had no friggin' clue as to what it takes to land an actual job.

[Hippo_Tron]

406. Economic demand for engineers is finite, just like the demand for everything else

Sure, the demand for engineers is higher than the demand for Sociology Professors. But most people majoring in sociology (or any other social science or humanities field) aren't going to do academic research for a living. A degree in social sciences or humanities teaches you how to think critically and teaches you how to write and those are both skills you need in today's economy.

An engineering degree is wonderful if you want to be an engineer. But society only needs so many people to do engineering, and frankly my friends who had engineering degrees didn't find jobs any quicker than anybody else. China and India only benefit from having more engineers if they need more engineers. And considering that India and China have a far greater proportion of undeveloped and underdeveloped areas, they are certainly going to need more engineers to catch up with us in development.

[Warren DeMontague]

407. And what is the demand for studies quantifying "hyper-sexualization" in Rolling Stone covers?

[Hippo_Tron]

410. As I already said, there's little demand for that

But many (if not most) of today's jobs don't require any particular curriculum from a university as a prerequisite. Knowing differential equations and real analysis isn't any more relevant to these jobs than knowing how to conduct and publish sociology research (which you don't really learn as an undergrad, anyway).

Studying engineering is usually a means of starting a career track as an engineer. Majoring in sociology is usually NOT a means of starting a career track to becoming an academic who studies hyper-sexualization in Rolling Stone covers. It's a means of learning how to read, write, and think critically while studying something that you enjoy. That can lead you to any number of different careers, again most of which don't require any particular university curriculum as a pre-requisite.

The fact that China and India are producing more engineers is only a problem if the demand for engineers is higher than the amount of engineers we're producing.

If our society needs more engineering work being done than is currently being done (and IMO it does to some extent) then I would suggest that we look at the demand factor rather than the supply factor. Maybe more people would major in engineering than in sociology if we'd start spending money on infrastructure and other problems that require engineers to fix.

[Warren DeMontague]

411. I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence, and think that's absolutely what we should do.

I do think that if you look at who is doing the work for high-tech corporations here, you have a lot of people who are 1st or 2nd generation Asians and Indians. I think this has to do with educational background and the stress put on Math & Science.

And I think our kids are being fed a false bill of goods if they think that they're going to come out of college with a post-grad degree in something like 17th century French Poetry, and expect that there are going to be a whole lot of jobs available for them that don't involve espresso.

[Hippo_Tron]

412. Again, there aren't a lot of jobs with 17th century French Poetry as a pre-requisite

But there are many good jobs, where having a good command of the French language could be a huge plus on your resume. Right now that's even more true if you studied 17th century Spanish poetry and have a good command of Spanish.

So I think you're right that people have been sold a false bill of goods if they think it's likely they will get a job as a University Professor of French Poetry, unless they're admitted to one of the top few programs in the country.

But if a person is really passionate about French Poetry, if they are accepted to a program where they have university funding, AND if they have a plan to take those skills they learned in graduate school and apply them to a career outside of the university, then I think it's a great idea to pursue a post-graduate degree in the subject.

[Warren DeMontague]

413. I'm also totally in favor of learning for the sake of learning.

But in that vein, I'm also against the bastardization of concepts like "science", particularly "hard, quantifable science"- in the pursuit of (usually culture-driven) agenda points; something that the Fundamentalist Right, for instance, is notorious for.

Which is the core of my objection to this OP, which has gotten way more attention than it deserved.

[aikoaiko]

172. I should be able to access this article at my university.

Thank you for pointing it out. It looks like good reading.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

181. Thank you! nt

[lapislzi]

174. I love this thread

Whether you agree with the OP or not, this is DU at its best. Intelligent, thought-provoking discussion. Bravo!

[seabeyond]

177. well, except maybe the posts of beavis and butthead. i am assuming that is who a poster

had up

i mean.... lol

[lapislzi]

178. LOL, for the amount of replies

this discussion has been great, not least for its civility. Love ya, seabeyond, btw.

[seabeyond]

180. ahhh

backatcha and was a treat seeing you, reading your posts. it has been a long time.

[Burma Jones]

179. They do this shit to toddlers even

[Modern_Matthew]

185. Let's all be fuddy duddies. nt

[Fool Count]

200. That's nothing. In Russia it went from zero to US levels in 20 years of

capitalist restoration.

[seabeyond]

207. yes. and they have quite a nationwide scam for young hot chicks and really stupid

lonely middle aged american men.

interesting that.

[dawg]

212. So,

how does that work now? They speak English?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

220. Nice. Isn't capitalism just lovely. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

202. I think the word "hypersexualized" was made up expressly for the purpose of this one "study"

[Under Dog]

236. Capitalism causing erectile dysfunction?

Well, according to Tess Fraad Wolff. Checkout the latest Prof. Richard D. Wolff Economic Update aired 12/24/11. Interview starts about 18 minutes into program. http://www.rdwolff.com/content/economic-update-wbai-dec-24th-2011

More.....Capitalism and Sexual Alienation http://rdwolff.com/content/capitalism-sexual-alienation

[Sarah Ibarruri]

258. I'll check them out. :)

That's one of the perks of being a woman. I don't have to worry about erectile dysfunction.

[LeftyMom]

244. Assigning numbers to a subjective judgment doesn't make it science.

Whether or not an image is sexualized, hypersexualized or not is pretty darned subjective.

[Warren DeMontague]

245. thank you.

lots of people want "hard science" to be whatever they want it to be. It isn't.

[LeftyMom]

248. Do schools not explain how research works, or do kids not pay attention?

If I'd written a proposal like that in elementary school I'd have got it back with a note to doublecheck my notes on methodology. An educated adult dreamed that hot mess up? Do they honestly know no better, or just expect that the reader won't?

[Warren DeMontague]

249. Like I said upthread, it's by sociologists, for sociology professors, teaching sociology students

whose career options are limited to careers in either sociological research along the same lines or also teaching sociology to more sociology students.

[Hissyspit]

255. Funny how your comments all through this thread sound almost exactly like GOP Florida Governor Rick

Scott, who has a BUSINESS degree and was a venture capitalist.

Yuck. Just yuck.

[Warren DeMontague]

293. Whatever. Sociology- which I studied in school myself- is a useful lens through which to look.

However, and this is important, it is a subjective analytical tool. Yes, there are many interesting things about people and culture which can been looked at and discussed at length.

But the difference I'm speaking of is sort of like the difference between The Civil War- which is an objective, historical reality- and saying "Gone With The Wind is the best film ever" - which is a subjective opinion


Concepts like "pornified", "hypersexualized", and "objectification" are someone's subjective labels, and should not be presented as hard scientific concepts that can be specifically quantified.

[Hissyspit]

253. As people have discussed in this thread, it is not completely subjective.

[LeftyMom]

270. I took a look at the methodology.

Calling it subjective would be generous.

[Warren DeMontague]

301. Even trying to lodge that objection seems useless. People know what they know, and they're gonna be

mad about what they're gonna be mad about.


Specifically, sex on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, of all places! Heavens to Betsy, where is the decency and modesty of yesteryear???

[Tumbulu]

250. I have been observing this my adult life- am in my mid 50's

somehow women have to stop participating in this.

In my youth we declared that we would not participate in this humiliation.
High heels- out!
Sexy clothes that are uncomfortable- out!
Allowing people to take pictures of you that look all porn-like- out!

We stopped this in the late 60's and early 70's and this new generation has to stop it as well.

We did it with peer pressure, as I recall. Any woman who allowed herself to dress all girly was just considered an idiot.

I still do not consider it OK to walk around looking hyper- sexual in public.

And people need to boycott advertisers who do this.

I do think that Rush Limbaugh's endless attack of the feminine has contributed to this, IMO

[Sarah Ibarruri]

257. Yes, but what happens if a child grows up with this garbage...

and knows nothing better? The female children grow up thinking this is the way females ought to look, and the male children grow up thinking this is the way females ought to look. In any case, what happens when the media (which is all around us), is presenting this as the norm, and there is nothing else to counter that?

As to Repukes having contributed to this, there's no doubt in my mind. Those enema-bag males of the Repuke Party are born with a crushed ego, and die with a crushed ego. They slide through life with a chip on their shoulder the size of a skyscraper about females and think females are their biggest enemies. Probably! Females are more likely to call those pigs for what they are.

As for Limbaugh (Mr. Piggy, to me), he's just always been a pointless excuse for a human. For a laugh, check out his picture bio. His pictures tell the full story of his life.

[Tumbulu]

272. Yes, I have a daughter who is ten and I am made crazy by it

No TV, only BBC shows like All Creatures Great and Small on Netflix......

The kids call girls who dress up in sexy ways "all girly!" with great disgust, I might add.

However, they see nothing sexual about what I see as over sexed. They take it as normal.

I am disappointed in those who came after my generation who began this slide.

It has always been a cheap shot- this selling the body for ephemeral power.

I had thought that we had gone beyond and past that. But suspect that I am wrong.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

273. It's sad that little girls think dressing up like something out of Cosmopolitan is just fine...

and I see it in all little girls. On the other hand, how could they not pattern themselves according to something that surrounds them until they know nothing but that?

[seabeyond]

274. the parents say no. i had one mom tell me, all the girls do it, how can i say no

well, not all the girls do it, firstly. and it is easy for me to say no. i have always said no to kids when i feel it is not in their best interest. it is my job.

i would get my niece every summer and take her shopping. and i would remind her every summer, i give the thumbs up on acceptable and not

my two nieces on hubby side of family, neither want to or are allowed to dress in that manner. one is 16 and one 14. and one, very much girlie girl.

a parent truly has tht much power, if the choose to exercise it.

[getdown]

314. some here need help understanding the point you made

about it becoming normalized, internalized, expected ...

women now are raised being called bitches and hos and expected to look/act like it too

[Sarah Ibarruri]

319. I'd venture to say that some in here get defensive every time a feminist speaks...

but they are the usual 3 or 4 suspects. You've run into them, I'm sure, as have I.

And yes, the pornification and sexual objectification of women has become normalized, internalized, and expected, and some just like it that way. No woman should find it acceptable.

[getdown]

320. well some women fall for it too, right?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

321. Oh, absolutely! I call them Bobble Head Women. They nod to anything their man says

even if their man is a total sexist piglet.

They have low self-esteem, Bobble Head Women.

[flamingdem]

280. Young women gain from this behavior

and thus it continues.. they don't really have role models who criticize it clearly, the role models in the media usually participate with plastic surgery and so on. We have become more visual with the internet so people use this to get needs met especially with dating but also with career.

[Scuba]

261. If a space alien watched TV in the US for four hours, he would conclude we sell three things....

Cars

Beer

Women



And not necessarily in that order.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

265. EXACTLY. American TV is geared to males, and not to the wise ones, either! nt

[randome]

268. Pretty much EVERYTHING is geared toward men. And I'm one.

But what about women's fitness magazines that portray sexualized images of women? Could this simply be a case of 'sex sells' everywhere? Even sexual innuendo?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

269. FEMALE sexuality is being sold everywhere. nt

[dawg]

287. This isn't all just geared to males.

Some of this is targeted at women in order to coerce them to buy product. Constant bombardment with images of young-looking, hypersexualized women can induce insecure-feeling women to overspend on makeup, clothes, even surgery, in order to compete. Which is kind of the point, I think.

It isn't men who are buying those women's magazines, and they are among the worst offenders in this. But look at how they make their money - the companies who advertise within. That is part of the reason for the exploitation.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

288. Yes, however, this is also true: Why would a woman want to buy a product, if it weren't:

(1) Sold to them as if it would attract a man;
(2) Men weren't upheld by society as the judge and jury by which women should measure themselves?

But yes, women's magazines are CRAP, GARBAGE, WORTHLESS.

[Rex]

291. This is not a surprise to me.

Capitalism loves pornography.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

292. It sure does. Capitalism is not about love, goodness, fairness, or helping. Only $$$$$.

[Rex]

296. Agree 100%

Sadly it is all about the $$$.

[getdown]

297. and

capitalism loves domination

[Odin2005]

334. IMO this is why I often wonder if the "sexual revolution" was a complete disaster.

Instead of de-stigmatizing female sexuality, it just caused society to go from an emphasis on the misogynist "woman as virgin" meme to the equally misogynist "woman as whore" meme, and women that don't get with the "whore" program are derided as "frigid" or "prudish" or are (as has been done in this thread) compared to reactionary fundy pearl-clutching moralists.

[seabeyond]

336. misogynist "woman as virgin" meme to the equally misogynist "woman as whore"

Last edited Sat Dec 31, 2011, 06:02 PM - Edit history (1)

you are exactly right on. there was actually a little bet of time between the two that was so sweeeeet. i am sad for those that didnt get to know or experience that. that is what bothers me the most. i know we can be better. doesnt have to be one or the other.

[getdown]

339. that's a good answer

to a post that makes it sound like either one or the other and doesn't mention the little bit of time between.

it wasn't automatic, like one led to the other, it was INTENTIONAL.

it was achieved with marketing.

hand in hand with the other political mindgames of the time.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

337. Yes! It went from the woman as helpless virgin, to the woman as whore

And you're right. If a woman doesn't swallow the whore bullshit, the usual handful of males pull out their megaphone and in accusatory fashion, begin to scream: "FEMINISTS! FEMINISTS!"

[Odin2005]

340. And it encourages our rape culture.

I suspect many victims of date rape do not bother even reporting the rape out of fear of being bashed for not liking "puting out".

[getdown]

342. it seems the disconnect

between bodies and the person who's inside is pervasive now ... "hookin up" is mechanical, depersonalized ...

[Sarah Ibarruri]

343. Being prudish. But the problem lies with the media, TV, Hollywood, comics, videogames

porn, magazines, etc. All of that which reinforces some really stupid stereotypes of women and men, that people in the society internalize.

For example, the one we're discussing, which is that either a woman is playing the part of a whore and good with it, or she hates sex. That's a stereotype based on a lie, that women who object to the whore stereotype don't or can't possibly love sex.

Women seem to always be subjected to extreme stereotypes.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

395. You're so right. Women continue to be placed in the role of either virgins or whores

There's no equality when the only choices are virgins and whores. Both roles subjugate the woman.

[getdown]

375. 2 words

madonna

[Sarah Ibarruri]

377. There's no doubt that playing whore makes money, but it sure as hell

is not a price I'd ever pay for a lot of cash.

Besides, I'd HATE to be in the spotlight. I mean, I'd HATE it, in caps, like that. I love my privacy. It's so delicious! Oooh I can do what I want.

[ensho]

389. a form of pimping

another way for men to make money off women

[Sarah Ibarruri]

394. Yes indeed, but all in the name of capitalism. Capitalism has no soul, and is amoral. nt

[proverbialwisdom]

390. K&R

http://www.wmm.com/about/jobs.shtml#internship

FILM FACT: Did you know that women made up only 16% of all directors, editors, producers, and writers working on last year's top 250 films?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

393. Good heavens! It's worse than I'd thought! nt

[WinkyDink]

414. The STUDY was of ROLLING STONE, IOW, the sexualization is in POP MUSIC.

And it doesn't take a "study" to grasp this EVIDENT reality.

Has the "studier" not seen Madonna, ca. 1985? Or Rihanna, Katy Perry, Miley, Britney, etc.?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

418. And you live in which country? nt

[noamnety]

415. and even when women aren't trying to be sexualized

we sexualize them or devalue them if they aren't rated as fuckable.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100296612

[seabeyond]

416. yup. so true, so true. a disgusting thread. nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

417. You're right. This isn't done only to Repuke females. It's worse with

Democratic women. Women all around the globe are tortured by being held to a standard of an anorexic 16 year old.