Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: For those women who think objectifying women as sex objects is OK [View all]redqueen
(115,103 posts)126. So many distortions, so little time.
Sexual objectification is everywhere. This is reality, it's not because "I got saved"
You even went on to admit it so WTF is up with comparing me to evangelicals?
One would have to be blind not to see it. Problem comes in here a few ways. One, it is not always bad, or wrong, or 'sinful', for people to see such images and like them. It's just not. Just because we can like something and someone knows that and makes an ad or cover utilizing that does not mean we are so one-dimensional all we see is someone we want to use or abuse.
Stop with the "sinful" bullshit. The feminist critique of objectification is not based on the idea of "sin" so please just stop. This is as bad as your "DOORS!" bullshit.
Where the 'war' comes in is when people tell us that we do. I spent some time checking out the twitter posts and such from these ladies and kate upton as well. They were excited to have been chosen for the cover, they are models, it is what they do, this was a big victory for them. To them - I am the object. A consumer to get some money from using ad revenue, sales, whatever. They don't care about me, I am just some person they can use as a means to an end of their personal goals. Which is just fine with me.
We are all 'presented' as something at some time to someone or some group. Used to drive me nuts when I was a deputy -we had to shine our brass each night, buff our shoes (unless you had those ever shiny ones, forget the term for them), shave, hair trimmed just right, etc. We had daily roll call and inspection to make sure we maintained the 'image' of what people expected us to look like. You could be the best cop there and get hammered in roll call if you if you weren't 'presentable'. It was worse at the ambulance company I later worked at.
We are all 'presented' as something at some time to someone or some group. Used to drive me nuts when I was a deputy -we had to shine our brass each night, buff our shoes (unless you had those ever shiny ones, forget the term for them), shave, hair trimmed just right, etc. We had daily roll call and inspection to make sure we maintained the 'image' of what people expected us to look like. You could be the best cop there and get hammered in roll call if you if you weren't 'presentable'. It was worse at the ambulance company I later worked at.
Those are not examples of objectification. The concept of sexual objectification is mainstream feminist theory. Before that, objectification was mainstream sociological theory. It isn't rocket science. There are many men and a few women trying to push that propaganda here, but it's as bullshit as the idea that evolution is "just a theory".
Again, no one is really denying that people are used as objects to sell or get attention. Difference is how one is offended or not by it and what they read into it. If you look upthread you see what I thought when I saw the cover. Basically it was ho-hum. Never heard of those three ladies before, probably never will again, they were/are attractive but nothing I don't see in the summer near the osu campus. Dime a dozen.
I get it, you don't think objectification is anything to be too bothered about. We disagree. Whatever. Some people aren't offended by racism.
As for what you see on campus - for the umpteenth time, that is not the same. Those women who are walking around are just going about their day. They are not bent in unnatural poses in order to titillate men. They are not being used to sell "sports" magazines. How can you still not get this?
We get out things what we read into them, generally speaking. If you are coming from a position that everything is centered around one thing you will see more in something than others will. And just because it affects you in a way it doesn't others does not mean they are haters, don't care, just want to use someone, and so on.
No, women are not just imagining this. It's not about how it affects me personally, it's about how it affects society.
Again, this is mainstream feminist theory.
I think it has been said that we should not tell others they cannot be offended by something. True. But you can't tell others they should be either. I don't want to race in like some white knight and rescue those ladies from doing something they enjoy and worked hard for. If I don't like the magazine I won't buy it. I don't get to define what others feel and they don't get to tell me what I feel or who I am because I don't feel the same way they do.
More distortions. Nobody said those women needed to be saved.
And yeah, I don't get to tell people that they should be offended by racism, either, but guess what happens when someone isn't? That's right - others make judgments about those people, as is their right.
We can discuss it all, and we have. Problem is now myself, and lots of other allies of women and their problems in society, are kicked to the curb and told not only are we not allies we see women as sub human, we are sick, we only think about touching ourselves, we are ignorant, etc. And that is why we have so much back and forth. You honestly feel how you do about something, I don't agree always with the general assessment and applications, we discuss it all, fine. I still think you are a liberal that cares about women and others issues. Apparently I, and others, are not afforded the same.
Get off the fucking cross. Nobody is "kicking you to the curb". Got a quote from someone calling you "sick"?
I don't dispute that you care about some women's issues. Most, probably. But not the ones that threaten this particular form of male privilege. This one is sacrosanct to brogressives. We get it.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
327 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It is reducing a woman's worth to the size/quality of her breasts and other physical attributes
hlthe2b
Feb 2014
#4
Well Bonobo, ignorance requires education, lest it lead to permanant stupidity. Let me help.
Scootaloo
Feb 2014
#66
Bull shit.. Just because YOU have not experienced the repercussions of this kind of attitude
hlthe2b
Feb 2014
#198
Iwill not have someone who uses ugly homophobic language try to tell me how to perceive
hlthe2b
Feb 2014
#214
No, he indicated that he changed his post in order because someone took it the wrong way.
phleshdef
Feb 2014
#229
Yea, and everything is "belittling" when you're such a god damn political emo.
phleshdef
Feb 2014
#315
What about gay men objectifying men? Or Lesbians Objectifying Women?
TampaAnimusVortex
Feb 2014
#272
You seem to (like many others) be confusing gender attraction in relationships with professional
hlthe2b
Feb 2014
#296
But the SI cover is not normal life. It is a commercial enterprise to sell magazines and soap.
Bonobo
Feb 2014
#51
Where did I say I was trying to ban them? I was trying to encourage people to think.
pnwmom
Feb 2014
#250
Actually it has been defined, but I don't think those who promote the idea would like who defined it
Major Nikon
Feb 2014
#82
I have been a Buddhist from before you were a twinkle in your fathers eyes ...
MindMover
Feb 2014
#20
To that degree of separation lay the seeds of mankind's destruction or salvation ...
MindMover
Feb 2014
#35
I do not think that they see "objectifying" as the concrete, all-encompassing thing that some do.
Bonobo
Feb 2014
#22
A question - If a woman wasn't offended by the SI cover, does that mean...
Violet_Crumble
Feb 2014
#24
You just hit the nail on the head about what was bothering me about it...
Violet_Crumble
Feb 2014
#251
Wow, someone actually asking that instead of telling someone what they thought
The Straight Story
Feb 2014
#36
I am upset with how they objectify sam and dean. Seen them without shirts on!
The Straight Story
Feb 2014
#45
I have a terrible feeling I've been objectifying the man I've been going out with...
Violet_Crumble
Feb 2014
#34
OMG ... I am getting so tired of that shit ... YES ... I feel great when my husband loves my tits
tandot
Feb 2014
#29
It's amazing, isn't it? The insane notion that women like fucking? Some women really like it,
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#79
In what way did that SI cover have anything to do with women liking or not liking fucking?
Squinch
Feb 2014
#83
Moving the goalposts to cover for a badly-reasoned OP isn't a very skilled move.
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#85
Your statement: "The insane notion that women like fucking." I'm asking you what the issue at hand
Squinch
Feb 2014
#89
So I guess you won't be answering the question of what the SI cover had to do with women's liking or
Squinch
Feb 2014
#96
Oh....I have no idea what gave you the impression I was going to answer questions from you. nt
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#101
Actually..since the OP asked about our personal feelings, this thread has quite rightly addressed
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#88
I think you are...the problem with poorly-written OPs that question people's feelings is
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#100
I WILL KICK ANALYZING Rexhumbard-ford Bartholamew-Aberdeen Provingrounds Smith ASS
Skittles
Feb 2014
#281
Okay, but you have to say my full name 3 times...while I get to run and hide first!
Rex
Feb 2014
#304
I would say this article on Wikipedia explains the differences of opinions well...
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#59
Liberals post things like "used my boobs to get out of a speeding ticket" on FB all the time...
dogknob
Feb 2014
#56
A while back another DUer gave a very good answer to this question.
Waiting For Everyman
Feb 2014
#70
You have objectified women with your one dimensional OP that insists on a blind dichotomy
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#78
Your outrage at the time this issue is taking away from ending hunger seems to be
Squinch
Feb 2014
#84
Even lawyers get time off. And I appreciate the solidarity shown for the OP...you have your
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#86
Why yes, they do. So your concern about time taken from "other issues" isn't all that valid, is it?
Squinch
Feb 2014
#91
I have no idea what you consider valid, and I care not to find out. But you seem upset
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#93
I generally find that when people say they have "no problem" with something, but spend
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#104
Thank you. You know I asked to be banned in HoF last week...they refused. nt
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#117
That would mean reading HoF. And then posting there. Both of which I've never done, except
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#121
Well, at least as long as you guys are spending your time still fighting over the same
2pooped2pop
Feb 2014
#110
Well, when only 5% of the artists in the Modern Art section of the Metropolitan Museum are female,
KitSileya
Feb 2014
#129
I've only seen two photos, both posted on discussion threads here on DU....
Cofitachequi
Feb 2014
#154
"run of the mill model poses" are designed to sell clothes, primarily to women.
Warren Stupidity
Feb 2014
#230
The problem I see is that society has decided that a woman's primary value is how she looks
btrflykng9
Feb 2014
#138
You're talking second wave feminism to a generation that is more third wave.
craigmatic
Feb 2014
#140
Your starting point is that you are the authority on what counts as objectifying women
ecstatic
Feb 2014
#190
This pseudo-feminist bullshit does nothing but distract from real women's issues that desperately...
phleshdef
Feb 2014
#170
Commodification at what level? Some commodification is fine and shouldn't be ended.
phleshdef
Feb 2014
#181
There are certain things that we all agree are not acceptable. Bigotry and homophobia are two.
Squinch
Feb 2014
#241
Ah - the tone criticism. Yes if they would just keep to issues you don't find uncomfortable.
Warren Stupidity
Feb 2014
#232
There are always some girls, no matter the generation, who aren't interested
RBStevens
Feb 2014
#203
I wish I could find it now, but I can't remember where I read it and who posted
Squinch
Feb 2014
#220
Do you really not understand why many women don't want to see T & A photos on a
pnwmom
Feb 2014
#253
What is your personal definition of objectification, for this specific post?
Butterbean
Feb 2014
#264
Good intentions, shitty loaded "when did you stop beating your wife" questions.
alp227
Feb 2014
#323