4
   

What does "objectification of women" mean, and can men be objectified?

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 08:46 am
@aidan,
aidan wrote:

Umm, I don't know how wishing people to be viewed as people instead of objects could be construed that I don't think sex is good. I think sex is great. I wouldn't want to live without it. I just want to be treated like a person while I'm having it. Is that being too sensitive? If so - so be it.

Yes, you're being too sensitive. There's no issue of being treated as a person. The fact that when I see some women, the first thing I think is SEX doesn't imply that I don't respect them as people also. You act as though lust and respect were mutually exlusive.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 08:58 am
@aidan,
They are promoting padded bras for 8 year olds. And make up. I know a 5 year old who wears nail varnish, make up and has her hair styled. She's more or less unmanageable. She's going to be a princess she says. Her parents have thousands of photographs of her. It disgusts me. She gazes into every reflective surface she comes across and contemplates herself at length. Her mother is from Vancouver.

We are digging a giant pit for ourselves. Media is out of control.
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 09:41 am
@Brandon9000,
No I don't Brandon. I like sex. I realize other people like sex. When I see some men on rare occasions, after talking to them and getting to know them, the first thing I might think sometimes - is, 'It might be nice to have sex with that guy,' but I never classify a person in my head as an object- for sex or anything else. If I did - I'd go buy a machine that could do the same job. That's all.

And in fact, I think respect without lust is called friendship or motherhood or sisterhood or daughterhood (for a woman) and I'd hope that lust and desire would be a part of any romantic relationship I ever had- or I wouldn't find it romantic - so NO I don't act or speak as if lust and respect are or should be mutually exclusive.

I just wouldn't want to be treated as a vending machine. That's all. I separate objects and people. Maybe it's just a case of my own crazy semantics. I'm not saying at all what you think I'm saying and if anything I wrote transmits that message to you - I must have made a mistake and misstated or misspoke my true beliefs.
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 09:43 am
@spendius,
.
Quote:
Her mother is from Vancouver.
Laughing Laughing
oh well that explains it....you crack me up. Laughing Laughing
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 10:43 am
@aidan,
Here's a nice bit of objectivication Rebecca. I hope it perks you up a bit as it did me.

Quote:
She wanders like a shuttlecock, from side to side she flutters.
She makes a lover with a wind, with every word she utters.
She's welcomed by the younger folk, and flirtingly she stands.
then sits and rouses someone else, toes wriggling, squeezing hands.
She blows a kiss, she gazes round, she turns and shows her ring,
to one she tips the sign of love, with one she stops to sing.


C. Naevius. Girl from Tarentum. circa 230 B.C. It's almost Doris Day.

It's something like a choreographer should think for the pas de deux with a bird of paradise displaying for one of those chaps with big thighs and a prominent bulge on the front of his tights.

It's an early version of Girl from the North Country. More classical too. It might be an interesting subject for a book to trace the poet's "girl" from the Odyssey to Candle in the Wind. From robust to fragile objectivications. A scholar could work that up. And have sequels. The painter's "girl". (Leave out Picasso's Weeping Woman). The older poet's "girl".

PS. I think I prefer the "v" to the "f" but I'm not sure.

aidan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 04:10 pm
@spendius,
That's beautiful - my favorite phrase is 'she makes a lover with a wind'. Did they really say, 'toes wriggling' in 230 B.C.?
Quote:
It's an early version of Girl from the North Country. More classical too. It might be an interesting subject for a book to trace the poet's "girl" from the Odyssey to Candle in the Wind. From robust to fragile objectivications. A scholar could work that up. And have sequels.

Do it - and post it. I'd read and comment.

It did perk me up - I copied and pasted it into my notebook. Thanks for posting it.


I read this article in the Times yesterday and it reminded me of this thread in its original intent to speak to the objectification of men:

By Craig Brown
Quote:
PROMISCUOUS women who have children by different men could help prevent humanity from becoming extinct, scientists claimed yesterday.

A study has shown that women who have multiple sexual partners reduce the risk of replicating a genetic quirk that means they are more likely to have only daughters.

A study by the Universities of Exeter and Liverpool contends that if all women had children with just one partner, a male- destroying chromosome could be reproduced and spread until humanity eventually became 100 per cent female, precipitating its extinction.

It claims that having multiple partners reduces the spread of a sex-ratio distortion (SR) chromosome that would lead to all-female offspring.

The SR chromosome has the effect of killing all the "male" Y chromosomes before fertilisation.

Polyandry, the practice of females having multiple partners to protect the future of the species, is common in the animal kingdom. Scientists believe that its occurrence has several benefits, including ensuring reproductive success and conferring more variation in traits to female's offspring, which would have a wider benefits for the health of a species' pack, hive or family.

The new research is the first to suggest that female humans should also have more than one man to safeguard our future.

The research was published in the journal Current Biology. One of the study's authors, Professor Nina Wedell, said: "Polyandry is a widespread phenomenon in nature, but it remains something of an enigma for scientists.

"This study is the first to suggest it could save a population from extinction."

Tom Price, another author on the paper, added that while the research spoke to all reproducing creatures, the complex nature of humans made it harder to apply in hard and fast terms.

The sex of a child is determined by X and Y chromosomes " a woman is XX and a man is XY.

But some men also carry the SR chromosome and when a human egg is fertilised, the SR kills the Y " producing a female baby.

That female will now also carry the SR gene, meaning any sons she has will also have SR chromosomes and will father only females.

But by having multiple partners " some of whom will not have the SR chromosome " the female can help ensure her descendants are males and females. The new research says monogamy means the sex ratio distortion chromosome will be passed down more often " eventually leading to an all-female population.

Experts carried out the experiment by studying fruit flies " which share 60 per cent of human genes. Some given some multiple partners and others were restricted to one mate each.

Over 15 generations, five of the 12 populations that had been monogamous died out because of a lack of males.


spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 06:15 pm
@aidan,
Quote:
Do it - and post it. I'd read and comment.


I'm not a scholar Rebecca. The comparison between Girl from Tarentum and Girl from the North Country is interesting and has an artistic route.

Craig Brown has a bit of a reputation you know. I'm not saying he was taking the piss in your quote. He may well be reformed for all I know.

But the research is a bit oversimplified. What goes on at the interface between the egg and the sperms that are butting their heads at it is possibly beyond the reach of science. It is likely to be beyond the reach of the owner of the egg as well. And completely beyond the reach and control of the ex-owner of the regiment of sperms.

It's another of those stories in which science likes to portray itself as having a good understanding of the female sex which anybody with any brains knows is impossible. It's male chauvinism. Got you lot in the same filing cabinet as fruit flies.

It might even be scaremongering in the sense that women would panic at the idea of a 100% female population, as well they might, and would stop being promiscuous. Science in preacher mode. The researchers trying to keep their WAGS under the cosh the humane way.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 06:30 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
I'm not saying he was taking the piss in your quote.


I'm not familiar with this idiom but I've noticed it a few times of late. What does it mean, Spendi, anyone?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 06:35 pm
@JTT,
Taking a rise. Having folk on a bit. Pulling people's legs. Yanking their chain.

In the higher class stuff the folks being had on are unaware that that they are being.

There was a suspicion that Craig Brown was the man behind the Wallace Arnold column in The Spectator when Dominic Lawson was the editor.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 06:39 pm
@spendius,
So would it be accurate, Spendi, for this particular situation to say,

I'm not saying he was putting you on/pulling your leg in your quote.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 06:47 pm
@JTT,
Yes. But I did say he might be reformed now. If you Google him there's a pretty good biography of him under "satirist" in the Wikipedia entry for three Craig Browns.

He would obviously have picked up on the story for its humour potential.

0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 06:51 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
I'm not a scholar Rebecca.


Here's a perfect example of 'taking the piss' JTT.

spendius IS a scholar if ever there was one.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 06:55 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
I'm not familiar with this idiom but I've noticed it a few times of late. What does it mean, Spendi, anyone?


it seems to be a bit more negative than spedi would have us believe

Quote:

The term sometimes refers to a form of mockery in which the mocker exaggerates the other person's characteristics; pretending to take on his or her attitudes, etc., in order to make them look funny. Or it may be used to refer to a ruse where a person is led to believe something is true that isn't (usually a fairly unbelievable story) for the purpose of ridicule of the "victim".

The phrase is in common usage throughout British society, employed by headline writers in broadsheet gazettes[2] and tabloids[3] as well as colloquially and is also used in English speaking countries such as Australia.[4][5]

In colloquial usage, 'taking the piss' is also used to refer to someone or something that makes a claim which is not in line with a recognised agreement e.g. an invoice that is double the quoted price with no explanation for the added charge could be said to 'take the piss', or likewise if something consistently misses a deadline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_the_piss

Quote:
take the piss Vrb phrs. 1. To ridicule, to tease, to make fun off. Cf. 'extract the urine'.
2. To take advantage of, to exploit. E.g."Just because they like looking after their grand children, doesn't mean you can dump the kids on them every weekend whilst you go out clubbing. That's just taking the piss."

http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/t.htm
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 06:56 pm
@aidan,
Oh no Rebecca. The most important thing about a scholar is the ability to do detailed research in libraries and archives. I'm hopeless at that. Thank goodness.
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 06:59 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
It might even be scaremongering in the sense that women would panic at the idea of a 100% female population, as well they might, and would stop being promiscuous.


Well, I must have read it differently than you because I read it to say that this gave women permission to be promiscuous - in fact it was beholden on us to be promiscuous - or else the species would die out.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 07:03 pm
@spendius,
Sir Henry Rider Haggard's books are one long piss take. Especially Ayesha.
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 07:35 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Oh no Rebecca. The most important thing about a scholar is the ability to do detailed research in libraries and archives. I'm hopeless at that. Thank goodness.

but if you remember what you read and you read extensively - research is redundant. For some reason, that's the impression I have of your abilities. I think you could be classified a scholar. Produce it - let's see if you're a writer...besides that which you write off the cuff in response to Wandle's articles.
(no pressure you understand - i just think it'd be a very interesting series of posts and I know I'd enjoy it).

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 02:30 pm
@aidan,
First off--I'm sorry for not responding to your post Rebecca. I did intend to and then other things got in the way for which I beg your pardon.

Maybe you would. Enjoy it I mean.

But would I? Otherwise it would have to be a chore.

And besides--what I write "off the cuff" might have the same effect. It isn't as disorganised as it looks at first sight.

A traipse through the historical record on the poetic journey from the Girl of Tarentum to the Girl from the North Country is a long and tortuous road. And it doesn't stop there.

From the Girl from the North Country to the girl wearing the leopard-skin pill box hat (1966) is a fair way.

Look at the difference between the Newports from first to last.
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 05:37 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
And besides--what I write "off the cuff" might have the same effect. It isn't as disorganised as it looks at first sight.

That's what I meant when I said that research would be redundant. I've never found your posts disorganized-you seem to have superior recall of what you read and you've obviously read a lot. I just meant that I'd enjoy reading posts on this particular subject - as opposed to evolution- just as an example. Laughing (Just kidding - you have to write about what you're led to write about. I accept that.)

Quote:
First off--I'm sorry for not responding to your post Rebecca. I did intend to and then other things got in the way for which I beg your pardon.
So nice of you to say - but not necessary spendius. Don't give it a thought.


spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 06:29 pm
@aidan,
Quote:
So nice of you to say - but not necessary spendius. Don't give it a thought.


Thank you Rebecca. I'm sure I don't deserve such understanding.

The poet's girl is what real evolution theory is all about.






0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/24/2021 at 12:55:31