Women objectify women too

[Tahar Joblis]

The primary enforcers of female fashion and gender role are women.

It should not be surprising to see that women inspect women every bit as thoroughly as men inspect women.

What that "news" article doesn't say about the actual study: The habit of paying attention to specific parts of women is easily broken by giving people a task designed to make them look at whole patterns rather than individual parts before they look at the photos.

Also, absolutely nothing about treating men as economic objects. This is purely a visual identification exercise - women are identified visually more by their parts, men visually more by the synthesis of their parts.

[Northern Dominus]

The results are in...

Women objectify women too.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/bo ... 09076.html

A new scientific study has confirmed a generally assumed truth: Women are objectified far more than men. But in a surprising development, the study also found that men and women are both equally guilty of looking at women as a "collection of parts."

Comments?

So women do it too...

Wait, is anybody really surprised? How about we all make a pact to ogle each other to our hearts content regardless of the plumbing below the beltline....and the person who acts on the ogling without permission gets the swift kicking they deserve for trying to ruin it for the rest of us.

Anybody else?

[Euronion]

personally I'm not that surprised. High School is a good teacher with and in itself and one thing I learned is that women are as cruel to other women as men. I cannot tell you all the stereotypical things I've heard women say about both men and other women. I recall one conversation between two classmates who were discussing that rather than calling a guy by his name they were going to call him cute face or something along those lines, they also battered men for their appearance, one incident battering a boy for being constantly having to eat, taking no account for the fact he had diabetes, judging him merely on looks and what was medically necessary. This is part of the reason I do not have as many female friends as male friends, and the ones I do have are not like that. The way I look at this study, is that men and women grade women by several factors, chest, behind, legs, ect. while men are judged on the whole, as in it doesn't matter if you have biceps and triceps the size of dumbbells, if you have a bit of belly then you MUST eat Twinkies every day and pig out at the local fast food restaurant. I noticed a huge difference (being a male) from when I went from fat (obese) to fit (normal and exercising 4-5 days out of the week) in how I was looked at and treated. The fact is both genders do it, and with different genders they are broken up into different ways of analyzing a person. a male is judged on the whole figure, a female judged on various physical features that come together to form the answer either attractive or unattractive.

Though I think this is another case of parts of society telling us to do something while another part of society plus our own bodies, genetics, and brains are telling us to do another. It has been like this since we were primates, we found people attractive based on various factors shown through physical appearance, then mated with said persons to produce offspring with a better chance of survival and/or mating than the previous generation. This comes as no surprise to me, part of society is telling us to look deeper into a person than just what's on top, this is understandable, however, when I am walking down the street and I am surrounded by complete strangers how am I expected to suppress millions of years of instinct, societal influence, my genetics, pheromones, and hormones and try to dig a little deeper in a stranger that I don't even know, that I, in fact, have no idea what their name is? would not all my 'digging deeper' be simply making assumptions about people's lives on no facts or evidence? would this not also be wrong? I understand the desire to come away from judging people purely on how they look, but how can we expect this if the only basis people have to judge people on IS their looks unless shown otherwise? And if the solution/goal is to simply eliminate the whole judging of individuals, that's simply impossible, we are able to control our own judgements about people, at least in the sense we are able to keep our mouths shut about it or to spread said judgement, but we cannot prevent a three second process that is completely natural.

[Samuraikoku]

So women do it too...

Wait, is anybody really surprised? How about we all make a pact to ogle each other to our hearts content regardless of the plumbing below the beltline....and the person who acts on the ogling without permission gets the swift kicking they deserve for trying to ruin it for the rest of us.

Anybody else?

I'm happy not getting slapped.

[Neutraligon]

I like them nice tits. Here's a picture of a completely nude tit:

(Image)

On topic, this clearly means we don't have to respect women since women don't respect themselves. Right OP?

That's a beautiful tit you have there, show me the other one!!!

[Nazi Flower Power]

Everyone likes nice tits.

Wrong! I personally don't give a shit.

Ditto. There are women that I find attractive, but it's not the tits that do it.

That's a beautiful tit you have there, show me the other one!!!

I take back what I said above. That is a very nice tit. I do like that.

[Zeppy]

(Image)

[Neutraligon]

(Image)

[Jinos]

When are we going to stop calling ogling a girl or watching pornography "objectification"?

As if admiring the female body somehow dehumanizes the person in question

[Trotskylvania]

In other words, we all evaluate the form of the human female, to assess its attractiveness and beauty? And the male form too, though maybe not as much.

I'm still wondering when and why this became a bad thing?

Because we view the cursory evaluation of attractiveness as a substitute for more rational evaluations. And because the attitude leads to viewing people as things and mere means to an end, rather than as people. There is a time and place for everything, but allowing such irrational evaluations to substitute for genuine regard for another as a person is dehumanizing.

[Trotskylvania]

When are we going to stop calling ogling a girl or watching pornography "objectification"?

As if admiring the female body somehow dehumanizes the person in question

That's because you misunderstand what objectification means. To objectify someone is to treat them as an object, a mere thing, rather than a person. It is not just sexual either; the economic objectification of people is the basis for our socioeconomic system.

When you treat people as a thing for your own amusement instead of an actual person, you dehumanize them. It's base, vicious behavior. No one is saying you can't admire an attractive person: we are saying remember that they are a person too and they do not exist solely for your amusement.

[Jinos]

In other words, we all evaluate the form of the human female, to assess its attractiveness and beauty? And the male form too, though maybe not as much.

I'm still wondering when and why this became a bad thing?

Because we view the cursory evaluation of attractiveness as a substitute for more rational evaluations.

So? Unless you're going into a job interview or some such when evaluations actually matter, that's irrelevant. Even then, using physical evaluation in disregard for performance evaluation strikes me as an easy way to get fired for promoting or hiring beautiful incompetents.

And of course, that all assumes that evaluation of attractiveness has even played a part in a person's judgement, or that evaluation of attractiveness, should it happen, overrules rational evaluations.

And because the attitude leads to viewing people as things and mere means to an end, rather than as people.

I don't buy that for one second. If you honestly think people look at women like furniture or a tool instead of a person then I think you're seeing strawmen.

The only case which I'd ACTUALLY think that could be accurately described is in the case of human trafficking (which I'd point out equally abuses young boys along with young women) or child soldiers.

[Choronzon]

This should shock absolutely no educated individual. Feminism has dealt with this issue for decades.

[Xeng He]

When are we going to stop calling ogling a girl or watching pornography "objectification"?

As if admiring the female body somehow dehumanizes the person in question

That's because you misunderstand what objectification means. To objectify someone is to treat them as an object, a mere thing, rather than a person. It is not just sexual either; the economic objectification of people is the basis for our socioeconomic system.

When you treat people as a thing for your own amusement instead of an actual person, you dehumanize them. It's base, vicious behavior.

The bolded is where I stop agreeing. People don't always treat others the same way in a different context. (A porn star or prostitute, por ejemplo, isn't just viewed as a target for screwing by friends and family), and sometimes a pure business relationship is all that's wanted.

No one is saying you can't admire an attractive person: we are saying remember that they are a person too and they do not exist solely for your amusement.

...none of that is mutally exclusive with "objectifying" behaviour. With abusive behaviour, yes, but they're not the same thing.

[Zaras]

I don't buy that for one second. If you honestly think people look at women like furniture or a tool instead of a person then I think you're seeing strawmen.

You haven't been on the internet long enough.

Maybe not furniture, but definitely as tools, specifically as receptacles for their sperm. The impotent rage at women who refuse to just play the role of a tool to get them off is a telltale mark of the Nice Guy^TM.

[Firdausia]

In other words, we all evaluate the form of the human female, to assess its attractiveness and beauty? And the male form too, though maybe not as much.

I'm still wondering when and why this became a bad thing?

Because we view the cursory evaluation of attractiveness as a substitute for more rational evaluations. And because the attitude leads to viewing people as things and mere means to an end, rather than as people. There is a time and place for everything, but allowing such irrational evaluations to substitute for genuine regard for another as a person is dehumanizing.

I agree, to an extent. Some people are so ugly, that is hard to look at them though.

[Trotskylvania]

So? Unless you're going into a job interview or some such when evaluations actually matter, that's irrelevant. Even then, using physical evaluation in disregard for performance evaluation strikes me as an easy way to get fired for promoting or hiring beautiful incompetents.

And of course, that all assumes that evaluation of attractiveness has even played a part in a person's judgement, or that evaluation of attractiveness, should it happen, overrules rational evaluations.

This is something that pervades all aspects of social life. Say, if two people make a screw up on a job, a pretty one and an ugly one, who do you think is more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt? Statistically, if you are attractive, you are more likely to be trusted, people will be nicer to you, and they'll be more likely to give you a break.

The only way to prevent this is to be aware of it. And that means understanding the concept of objectification, and finding a way to deconstruct your base impulses. Shooting the messenger for telling you that objectification happens won't accomplish a damn thing towards actually making rational judgments.

I don't buy that for one second. If you honestly think people look at women like furniture or a tool instead of a person then I think you're seeing strawmen.

The only case which I'd ACTUALLY think that could be accurately described is in the case of human trafficking (which I'd point out equally abuses young boys along with young women) or child soldiers.

There are many levels of dehumanization. But when you treat people as objects for your amusement or advancement, even on a small level, there is an inevitable amount of dehumanization. Why do you think that many otherwise "normal" people end up abusing prostitutes? Why else would a kind and loving family man turn into a tyrant when fulfilling his role as a manager?

It's because they've reduced the category of those they relate with from subjects to objects.

[Jinos]

When are we going to stop calling ogling a girl or watching pornography "objectification"?

As if admiring the female body somehow dehumanizes the person in question

That's because you misunderstand what objectification means. To objectify someone is to treat them as an object, a mere thing, rather than a person. It is not just sexual either; the economic objectification of people is the basis for our socioeconomic system.

No. I know exactly what it means. And I'm saying that it doesn't apply. That what activists call "objectification" isn't really objectification.

Objectification requires that people be treated as an object, not just as someone which they can see as something else.

A conman sees someone on the street, and thinks of that person as his next sucker. That doesn't mean he thinks of them as an 'object' or something less than human.

A general sees a list of casualties, and sees a statistic. That doesn't mean he thinks of them as nothing more than one less gun fighting for him.

When someone is objectified, they're not only VIEWED as less than human, they're treated less than human as well. You can say "well, he objectified her" but without any tangible action on the man's part, it's impossible to say what he thought or what he might've done.

When you treat people as a thing for your own amusement instead of an actual person, you dehumanize them. It's base, vicious behavior. No one is saying you can't admire an attractive person: we are saying remember that they are a person too and they do not exist solely for your amusement.

Human traffickers treat people as a thing for their own amusement and economic gain. Some guy ogling a girl at a bar is not treating a person as a thing for their own amusement. Nor is it if he watches her in a porno.

[Zaras]

Some guy ogling a girl at a bar is not treating a person as a thing for their own amusement. Nor is it if he watches her in a porno.

Yes, he is. He's being a douche by only caring about her tits/ass and not about her as a person. He's sexualising her without her consent.

[Fleetplace]

The results are in...

Women objectify women too.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/bo ... 09076.html

A new scientific study has confirmed a generally assumed truth: Women are objectified far more than men. But in a surprising development, the study also found that men and women are both equally guilty of looking at women as a "collection of parts."

Comments?

Do you actually know what it means to objectify someone?

Cause your link...doesn't say that women and men objectify women at the same rate.

[Choronzon]

The results are in...

Women objectify women too.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/bo ... 09076.html

A new scientific study has confirmed a generally assumed truth: Women are objectified far more than men. But in a surprising development, the study also found that men and women are both equally guilty of looking at women as a "collection of parts."

Comments?

Do you actually know what it means to objectify someone?

Cause your link...doesn't say that women and men objectify women at the same rate.

A few people posting in this thread don't seem to know what it means to objectify someone. They also don't seem to understand that the objectification doesn't have to be permanent or even conscience.

[Jinos]

This is something that pervades all aspects of social life. Say, if two people make a screw up on a job, a pretty one and an ugly one, who do you think is more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt? Statistically, if you are attractive, you are more likely to be trusted, people will be nicer to you, and they'll be more likely to give you a break.

The only way to prevent this is to be aware of it. And that means understanding the concept of objectification, and finding a way to deconstruct your base impulses. Shooting the messenger for telling you that objectification happens won't accomplish a damn thing towards actually making rational judgments.

More likely to be given the benefit of the doubt? I don't know, maybe a more attractive person has it easier, I can't say that for sure. But that isn't objectivism. Stop mislabeling things.

If showing more leniency on an attractive person over a more unattractive person happens, it's preferential treatment, not 'objectivism'

An unattractive person isn't being dehumanized. Unfairly marginalized? Yes. Dehumanized? NO.

There are many levels of dehumanization.

No, there isn't. You either think of and treat someone as a decent human being, or you don't. There's no Grey area, simply treating someone poorly isn't a qualifier for "dehumanization."

Why do you think that many otherwise "normal" people end up abusing prostitutes? Why else would a kind and loving family man turn into a tyrant when fulfilling his role as a manager?

Remind me, what constitutes "normal" these days?

What I think is that some sociopath is just good at convincing people he's well adjusted, and then when nobody is looking he finds an outlet for his sick twisted games.

But are you really comparing things like watching a porno/ogling a girl to abusing prostitutes? Where does the jump in logic come from?

That's the problem when Feminists start talking about "objectification." They lump in ogling a girl with rape. Because to them it's all just "objectification." And when they do, THEY trivialize rape/slavery/abuse. Because when people hear about how some poor women was objectified for real, treated like a piece of property by some slaver, they won't understand the meaning of that horror, because they'll associate it with petty stuff that Feminists complain about, like pornography.

Objectification is a serious problem that deserves serious attention toward serious incidents. As in, it's a term that shouldn't be thrown around so carelessly. But it is.

[Xeng He]

I don't buy that for one second. If you honestly think people look at women like furniture or a tool instead of a person then I think you're seeing strawmen.

You haven't been on the internet long enough.

Maybe not furniture, but definitely as tools, specifically as receptacles for their sperm. The impotent rage at women who refuse to just play the role of a tool to get them off is a telltale mark of the Nice Guy^TM.

I've seen the exact opposite done by men on the internet.

So before you go around making judgements...

[Xeng He]

A few people posting in this thread don't seem to know what it means to objectify someone. They also don't seem to understand that the objectification doesn't have to be permanent or even conscience.

Interestingly enough, that it isn't necessarily permanent is why it's not much of a real issue.

[Jinos]

Some guy ogling a girl at a bar is not treating a person as a thing for their own amusement. Nor is it if he watches her in a porno.

Yes, he is. He's being a douche by only caring about her tits/ass and not about her as a person. He's sexualising her without her consent.

All human beings are sexual creatures. This is a natural extension of the human condition. He isn't being a "douche" he hasn't even DONE anything, except look at someone. Or is that kind of like thoughtcrime? And, in addition, how do you know he only cares about her tits/ass? There's absolutely no way to prove such speculation. In fact, the whole line of thought precludes the possibility that one can admire another human on a physical level while simultaneously admiring other aspects of them.