Is Objectification such a bad thing?

[Dewalt]

This is just an example of another of the inane arguments that someone taking first year university classes leaps into, as if the topic wasn't done to death by Gloria Steinheim decades ago. Feel free to ignore it, especially the person who's business depends on being objectified, as it is hypocritical.

Then wait for the next argument - I bet you $20 it will be "How the patriarchy is a terrible thing" or "vegetarianism is better for the world"

..I would be more interested if this drivel wasn't just rehashed over and over again from people who are condecending, judgemental and who only half understand it.

 

[genintoronto]

I have not responded to your point because a) I have an other life, b) this discussion and the points you are bringing has been done over and over again, lots of writings out there addressing these points, and I don't feel like rewriting the wheel, c) the discussion bores me, probably because I've had it too many times already, d) my general reading of the points you bring suggests to me that you are misreading/misunderstanding the author cited, myself, and the concept of "objectification" and I'm not particularly invested in clarifying them (see b and c), and e) this comment you made (along with others) makes me think that either I'm too obtuse, or that you are willfully misreading what I say:

You'll note I'm not responding to your claim that no-one is entitled to an opinion on the subject unless they are women.

In either case, it makes me feel like I'm wasting my procrastination time repeating this discussion here.

But here is my very brief answer to your points:

I note that you haven't responded to my points about objectification:

1. That it is not mutually exclusive with other ways in which people can interact with one another

True. Like any human dynamic, it's more complex and complicated than either/or. Doesn't make objectification less problematic though. Error of logic here: because an argument doesn't address every single aspects of an issue is not a proof of the invalidity of the argument.

2. That it can't be DEFINED to be dehumanizing since that makes any subsequent arguments that objectifying someone is dehumanizing circular.

I don't understand your reasoning here.

3. That it is not objectification, but the lack of other modes of interaction leaving only objectification, that is generally the problem in the harmful cases you gave.

Again, I think that you are confusing conditions of possibilities with causation. And that you are misunderstanding what the concept of objectification mean.

4. That the problem with the media historically is NOT that it portrayed women as sex objects, but that it ONLY portrayed women as sex objects.

Mostly agree with it. But then you have to ask, why is it that women were/are only/mostly portrayed as sexual object? Is it a coincidence you think that women were/are portrayed as such, and not men (at least not to the same extent)?

In short that objectification is a healthy, normal part of being human, and a healthy, normal way of interacting with other humans, and only appears to be a problem when other layers of interaction are missing.

Completely disagree with it. I refer you again to the article cited above, and to many other writings on the topic.

You'll note I'm not responding to your claim that no-one is entitled to an opinion on the subject unless they are women: Yes we all have our own perspectives, if yours enables you to see something others can't then bring it to the table and make some points about what you see.

I never suggested that only women are entitled to make claims on objectification. And while I do think that your male privilege may prevent you from seeing/acknowledging something that my experience prevents me from NOT seeing/acknowledging, I also don't think it is my job to explain it to you and do the work for you to see it (see again point b and c above). I am happy however to refer you to some more readings on the issue, if you are really that interested in it - but maybe you want to take it to PMs, as I have a feeling that nobody else is interested in this discussion.

 

[fuji]

True. Like any human dynamic, it's more complex and complicated than either/or. Doesn't make objectification less problematic though.

It does though. The whole line of argument in the article you cited, and in most feminist literature on the topic, goes like this:

1. Objectifying means you view a person as an object
2. Therefore you don't view them as a person
3. etc.

It is point #2 that is invalidated by the notion that objectification can happen simultaneously with other modes of interaction. It is possible to view someone as an object AND as a person simultaneously, on different levels, or in different moments.

If you then go read most of the literature on objectification, which assumes this is a simplistic/linear proces, you see that it generally all falls apart at this point. The purported harm all falls out of something which in reality never happens because the arugment overlooked the complexity/simultanaity of actual human experience.

With that point #2 invalidated where is the harm from objectification?

I don't understand your reasoning here.

If you define objectification to be dehumanizing then the following argument, for example, is circular:

1. Pornography objectifies women
2. Objectification is dehumanizing
3. Therefore pornography is dehumanizing

Genearlly claim #1 is made by pointing out that pornography treats women as sex objects, but no attempt is every made to show that this is dehumanizing, because objectification is "defined" to be dehumanizing. The literature generally considers it enough to point out that a woman is portrayed as a sex object and then ASSUMES, without merit, that this is dehumanizing, glossing over this assumption "by definition".

The actual logical connection between being a sex object and being dehumanized is never made--it is glossed over by circular reasoning and/or a change of definition.

Mostly agree with it. But then you have to ask, why is it that women were/are only/mostly portrayed as sexual object?

No-one is disputing that there was and is discrimination against women. I would point out, though, that as women have achieved increasing equality with men that the number of images in the media objectifying men have also increased.

I think this is healthy, and a sign that women are gaining equality with men as I think sexual objectification is a normal part of being human that was previously unfairly denied to women.

 

[genintoronto]

Is it a coincidence you think that more women work in prostitution than men ?

Well, there are a lot of men sex workers, but they cater mostly to other (gay) men than to women.

And no, I don't think it's a coincidence.

My understanding of it is that a significant reason why women don't tend to pay for sex in the same ways that men do is because they aren't socialized into objectifying others in the same ways that men (straight or gay) are.

Mind you, this doesn't mean that women are incapable of objectifying others: for instance, while women don't seem to sexually objectify men in ways that would bring them to pay for sex as easily and explicitly as men do, white colonial women have never had a problem objectifying and exploiting the bodies and labor of slave men and women of color.

More currently, there's also quite a bit of literature discussing the "vacations romances" sex industry in which more and more occidental women are engaging in with local men while vacationing in third world countries. One of the very interesting thing about these "romances" is that the large majority of the women who are taking part in them don't see it as sex-for-pay or prostitution, even though there is exchange of money and gifts involved. The local men with whom those women are having these "affairs", on the other hand, very openly call themselves "gigolos" or the local equivalent for "escort", and clearly note that those "romances" are an income-generating occupation for them, and that there is no real romance going on.

 

[snowleopard]

It does though. The whole line of argument in the article you cited, and in most feminist literature on the topic, goes like this:

1. Objectifying means you view a person as an object
2. Therefore you don't view them as a person
3. etc.

It is point #2 that is invalidated by the notion that objectification can happen simultaneously with other modes of interaction. It is possible to view someone as an object AND as a person simultaneously, on different levels, or in different moments.

If you then go read most of the literature on objectification, which assumes this is a simplistic/linear proces, you see that it generally all falls apart at this point. The purported harm all falls out of something which in reality never happens because the arugment overlooked the complexity/simultanaity of actual human experience.

With that point #2 invalidated where is the harm from objectification?

To me, human objectification is not necessarily depersonalizing, but, in reality, unfortunately it often is.
It is, after all, at the heart of the moral, philosophical, religious, sociopolitical dualism that allows us to separate the world into us and them, good and evil, righteous and unrighteous, worthy and unworthy, to drop bombs on innocent civilians from a distance, carry out ethnic cleansing, genocide, rape, torture, discrimination, abuse, power-trips, etc, etc.

Without the dehumanizing potential of objectification, such things become impossible, because we would always see ourselves in others, and others in ourselves. But as fuji says, it's not that objectification is inherently wrong or unnatural, but rather how we tend to use it that is the problem.

 

[genintoronto]

If you define objectification to be dehumanizing then the following argument, for example, is circular:

1. Pornography objectifies women
2. Objectification is dehumanizing
3. Therefore pornography is dehumanizing

Genearlly claim #1 is made by pointing out that pornography treats women as sex objects, but no attempt is every made to show that this is dehumanizing, because objectification is "defined" to be dehumanizing. The literature generally considers it enough to point out that a woman is portrayed as a sex object and then ASSUMES, without merit, that this is dehumanizing, glossing over this assumption "by definition".

The actual logical connection between being a sex object and being dehumanized is never made--it is glossed over by circular reasoning and/or a change of definition.

See, that's why this conversation bores me.

Yes, the above is an argument that has been made by some feminists. And yes, I agree with you that it is simplistic, totalizing, and reductionist. But much more sophisticated, and in my opinion valid, arguments re: objectification have been made by many other feminists. But for some reason, people who want to argue that objectification is not a problem always pick on the simplistic, totalizing, and reductionist arguments and analyzes, rather than engaging honestly and fairly with the more sophisticated one. I call this willful ignorance, and/or intellectual dishonesty.

But lets bring this conversation closer to home, and back to where it started: the sex industry, which is based on the sexual objectification of women's bodies and sexuality, while also being much more complicated and complex than this.

Lets bring it even closer to home, to some recurrent comments that are being made on Terb:

For instance, comments regarding rates/services, where guys will suggest that X rates should come with X, Y and Z services, or the endless comparisons between hiring an escort and buying a car/eating at a restaurant.

Now, leaving aside the fact that it's rude to compare a human being to a car/steak, what lies underneath these comments is an apparent inability to recognize and acknowledge the fact the sex workers are human beings who have the ultimate control and decision power over their bodies, and with whom and how they share it; that an SP/client encounter is by definition YMMV because we are talking about human beings interacting with one another here, not one human being driving a car/eating a steak. How many times have you read comments like this here? How many times have you read someone coming in the thread to remind everybody that "escorts are people too"?

So, how is this harmful? Well, I would suggest that if you think that hiring an escort is like buying/driving a car, that you will relate to said escort in a very different way than if you were to understand hiring an escort as similar to hiring a therapist. And personally, I would rather spend time with the later one, than with someone who sees me as a car.

 

[VirginJohn]

My understanding of it is that a significant reason why women don't tend to pay for sex in the same ways that men do is because they aren't socialized into objectifying others in the same ways that men (straight or gay) are.

Hi. I can not resist a good arguement.

That is interesting - because I think the reverse arguement, that men are seen as 'financial objects' or walking ATMs would sort of hold true and are therefore objectified.

Guys are expected to pay for everything, dating, marriage, etc..

Now, let's talk about sexual objectification. I say it's supply and demand. The fact is it's very difficult for guys to have sex with any girl that they want, unless they get off on paying their way for sex. Would that have anything to do with it? A woman can easily get access to sex without having to pay for it. Therefore, I don't think that is a fair comparison.

I personally would love to be sexually objectified by other women, and I don't see what guy would mind being a sexual object, or understand how other people could ever view that as a problem -- making this a strange world.

Wow, people actually complain about being objectified -- like give me your problem then and lets trade places. This is exactly why I'm going to the gym to try to build muscles is to turn into such an object.

For the record, I'm paying money to have a female personal trainer help me build my muscles and she just charges $ 75.00 per hour -- I'm paying money so I can become a sex object....and people are complaining about this.

 

[great bear]

Hi. I can not resist a good arguement.

That is interesting - because I think the reverse arguement, that men are seen as 'financial objects' or walking ATMs would sort of hold true and are therefore objectified.

Guys are expected to pay for everything, dating, marriage, etc..

Now, let's talk about sexual objectification. I say it's supply and demand. The fact is it's very difficult for guys to have sex with any girl that they want, unless they get off on paying their way for sex. Would that have anything to do with it? A woman can easily get access to sex without having to pay for it. Therefore, I don't think that is a fair comparison.

I personally would love to be sexually objectified by other women, and I don't see what guy would mind being a sexual object, or understand how other people could ever view that as a problem -- making this a strange world.

Wow, people actually complain about being objectified -- like give me your problem then and lets trade places. This is exactly why I'm going to the gym to try to build muscles is to turn into such an object.

For the record, I'm paying money to have a female personal trainer help me build my muscles and she just charges $ 75.00 per hour -- I'm paying money so I can become a sex object....and people are complaining about this.

You should be paying $150.00 per hour to spend time with a psychologist. Its your mind that's fucked not your body.

 

[genintoronto]

To me, human objectification is not necessarily depersonalizing, but, in reality, unfortunately it often is.
It is, after all, at the heart of the moral, philosophical, religious, sociopolitical dualism that allows us to separate the world into us and them, good and evil, righteous and unrighteous, worthy and unworthy, to drop bombs on innocent civilians from a distance, carry out ethnic cleansing, genocide, rape, torture, discrimination, abuse, power-trips, etc, etc.

Without the dehumanizing potential of objectification, such things become impossible, because we would always see ourselves in others, and others in ourselves. But as fuji says, it's not that objectification is inherently wrong or unnatural, but rather how we tend to use it that is the problem.

The thing is though, that discussing objectification outside of the social context in which it occurs, ie, outside of the unequal power relations of our society, is meaningless.

Sure, I'm ready to agree that objectification could be non-harmful outside of unequal power relations. I'm also ready to agree that prostitution and pornography are not inherently objectifying and exploitative, and therefore not inherently harmful: in a world where everybody would be de facto equal and no only de jure equal, I can see pornography and prostitution being completely devoid of any sorts of harm and exploitation.

But we don't live in such a world. So what's the point of debating a social concept and practice outside of its social context???

 

[fuji]

Yes, the above is an argument that has been made by some feminists. And yes, I agree with you that it is simplistic, totalizing, and reductionist.

It's also more or less the argument that was made in the article you provided the link to.

But much more sophisticated, and in my opinion valid, arguments re: objectification have been made by many other feminists.

Do you have a link to any such? The previous article you provided a link for is the totalistic one, which is deeply flawed in its analysis.

Now, leaving aside the fact that it's rude to compare a human being to a car/steak

Why is it rude? In the context of trading for services it is entirely reasonable.

inability to recognize and acknowledge the fact the sex workers are human beings who have the ultimate control and decision power over their bodies

While there are many differences between sex work and other form sof work this is not one of them: At some level all employees are always treated this way. In my line of work I often refer to the people who work for me as "resources" and I have equations that predict the amount of work that they will get done over what time. It's pretty "dehumanizing", much more so than comparing an SP to a car.

In fact I make major decisions about their lives along lines that essentially ignore the fact that they are people with feelings--hiring and firing decisions, task assignment decisions, things that will determine major aspects of how their lives will turn out, and I do all of that while referring to them as "resources".

Plainly I'm objectifying them, not sexually, but in some other sense, as "resources".

Nevertheless when I show up in the office every day and chat with them about their lives they become my friends and co-workers, it does NOT cause me to relate to them in some dehumanized way. Just as with sexual objectification even though I select an SP and visit an SP for very objectified reasons I nevertheless relate to her when I'm there as a human being.

That is again the fundamental flaw in this whole concept that objectification is a problem: Yes, you can say that at one level I am thinking of an SP similar to a steak, or a car, or a "resource", but that offends against the true complexity that I have as a human being--I equally and simultaneously relate to her in many other ways, I do not ONLY relate to her in the objectification sense.

As I said, and I think a few others have said, it is when objectification becomes the ONLY way you relate to someone that it becomes problematic--but that is not what happens in real world interactions between otherwise healthy people.

So, how is this harmful? Well, I would suggest that if you think that hiring an escort is like buying/driving a car, that you will relate to said escort in a very different way than if you were to understand hiring an escort as similar to hiring a therapist.

And that's the very point I have been denying from point one. It is a fallacy that just because you relate to someone that way at one level that this means you won't relate to them in other ways at other levels.

This line of argument you are making overlooks the true complexity of human relations in which I can simultaneously objectify someone sexually and also view them as a friend or co-worker or whatever else they may be.

 

[snowleopard]

But we don't live in such a world. So what's the point of debating a social concept and practice outside of its social context???

No point whatsoever ... except as purely philosophical conjecture, which, I assume, is what fuji is indulging in.

In a perfect world, no one would objectify others in a dehumanizing or harmful way ... In reality, they do.

End of debate.

 

[genintoronto]

Why is it rude? In the context of trading for services it is entirely reasonable.

And here again, you show me why I'm wasting my procrastinating time discussing this with you.

While there are many differences between sex work and other form sof work this is not one of them: At some level all employees are always treated this way. In my line of work I often refer to the people who work for me as "resources" and I have equations that predict the amount of work that they will get done over what time. It's pretty "dehumanizing", much more so than comparing an SP to a car.

In fact I make major decisions about their lives along lines that essentially ignore the fact that they are people with feelings--hiring and firing decisions, task assignment decisions, things that will determine major aspects of how their lives will turn out, and I do all of that while referring to them as "resources".

Plainly I'm objectifying them, not sexually, but in some other sense, as "resources".

Nevertheless when I show up in the office every day and chat with them about their lives they become my friends and co-workers, it does NOT cause me to relate to them in some dehumanized way. Just as with sexual objectification even though I select an SP and visit an SP for very objectified reasons I nevertheless relate to her when I'm there as a human being.

Why yes, objectification happens in more than one context, and not only women are being objectified.

And yes, capitalism relies heavily on the objectification of the labor force. There's this guy, Karl Marx, who wrote a few books on this, and who showed why/how capitalism is inherently an exploitative and oppressive mode of production.

Sure, assuming you are not an asshole, you probably relate decently with your co-workers and the people who work for you, even if you also treat them as "resources" when making decisions that will indeed hugely impact their lives, sometime very negatively. Do you think it makes a huge difference in their lives, after being laid off, to know that you also see them as human beings?

That is again the fundamental flaw in this whole concept that objectification is a problem: Yes, you can say that at one level I am thinking of an SP similar to a steak, or a car, or a "resource", but that offends against the true complexity that I have as a human being--I equally and simultaneously relate to her in many other ways, I do not ONLY relate to her in the objectification sense.

As I said, and I think a few others have said, it is when objectification becomes the ONLY way you relate to someone that it becomes problematic--but that is not what happens in real world interactions between otherwise healthy people.

And that's the very point I have been denying from point one. It is a fallacy that just because you relate to someone that way at one level that this means you won't relate to them in other ways at other levels.

This line of argument you are making overlooks the true complexity of human relations in which I can simultaneously objectify someone sexually and also view them as a friend or co-worker or whatever else they may be.

See, when a random dude on the street grabs my ass, I could care less that he also sees me as something else than a piece of ass. When a client gets pissy because he didn't get the BBBJ he expected because he read about it in a review and expect to get the same service (why would a car drive smoothly for one person and not for the other???), I don't give a shit that somewhere, he knows that I am a human being too. And when I worked for McDonald, where I was seen as expandable resources by the management and asked to produced more for less or take the door, the fact that my manager was "nice" to me didn't make a difference on my pay check.

 

[toughb]

"End of debate"
***

Nope!...

 

[snowleopard]

"End of debate"
***

Nope!...

Yeah really ... who am I kidding!!?

btw toughb ... Ray apologizes for treating you as a sex object

 

[fuji]

And yes, capitalism relies heavily on the objectification of the labor force. There's this guy, Karl Marx, who wrote a few books on this, and who showed why/how capitalism is inherently an exploitative and oppressive mode of production.

Exploitative yes. Oppressive no. Marx was wrong. Exploitation is not a dirty word.

Do you think it makes a huge difference in their lives, after being laid off, to know that you also see them as human beings?

Yes I do. My dad was also a manager, and at one point in his career the factory he was managing got into serious trouble and he had to lay off a lot of people. That's because laying them off was the only way he could see to save the jobs of the rest. That fell out of his proper analysis that the factory had too many resources compared to the realistic level of demand it faced.

That day when he got home it was one of only two times I have ever seen him cry, the other time being when my mom died. He really felt like he'd failed the people he had to let go--but it was the right decision, and a necessary decision.

Twenty five years on and well into his retirement he is still good friends with many of the people he let go that day.

See, when a random dude on the street grabs my ass, I could care less that he also sees me as something else than a piece of ass.

The same point stands: It was not his objectification of you that was the problem in that situation, it was his LACK of something else that was the problem--in this case his lack of an understanding that you are a person with a right not to be assaulted. Had he related to you in that additional way his objectification of you would not be an issue.

And when I worked for McDonald, where I was seen as expandable resources by the management and asked to produced more for less or take the door, the fact that my manager was "nice" to me didn't make a difference on my pay check.

Sure, and it doesn't make any difference to the pay cheques of the people who work for me either--if I let them go it is an objective decision, one in which they are objectified as resources.

I think at this point you simply hate the world, you're arguing against fact and reality and saying it's wrong.

 

[snowleopard]

I think at this point you simply hate the world, you're arguing against fact and reality and saying it's wrong.

Fuji, with all due respect, that's an insulting thing to say.

In fact, your theoretical argument is not based on reality but on conjecture ~ i.e. that in ideal relationships, objectification and humane behaviour are not necessarily mutually exclusive ... so what! Fact is, objectification can be, and often is, dehumanizing and harmful.

One could just as well argue that words aren't inherently harmful, however if one uses language to insult, demean, deceive, or cheat another person, the fact that the words themselves are not inherently bad, when taken out of the context in which one is using them, does not change the fact that one has offended another person, and may be banned for it, if that other person happens to be a fellow terb member.

Give it up

 

[genintoronto]

The same point stands: It was not his objectification of you that was the problem in that situation, it was his LACK of something else that was the problem--in this case his lack of an understanding that you are a person with a right not to be assaulted. Had he related to you in that additional way his objectification of you would not be an issue.

And my point stands: you (willfully or not) misunderstand the meaning of objectification. His lack of an understanding that I am a person is exactly what objectification mean: he saw me as an object, not a person.

I think at this point you simply hate the world, you're arguing against fact and reality and saying it's wrong.

Huh uh. *I* am arguing against fact and reality. Sure.

As for hating the world... well, there are many days that I am quite angry at the world. And yes, I do think that we live in a fucked up world, where the immense majority of us get screwed for the benefit of a few. Yes, I do think that the history of humanity is pretty fucking disgusting, and yes, sometimes I find it quite depressing. But most of the time, I also believe that the world is still worth fighting for. And there are a few good things that I enjoy about the world. And that's what I use my anger at the world for: to change the world and make it more good than bad.

So, lets say I have a healthy love/hate relationship with the world, rather than just saying I'm a hater.

 

[fuji]

And my point stands: you (willfully or not) misunderstand the meaning of objectification. His lack of an understanding that I am a person is exactly what objectification mean: he saw me as an object, not a person.

He could have done both things simultaneously. He can at one level view you purely as a sex object, and at another level view you as a human being.

Or put another way, if objectification must mean that there is also a lack of those other layers of interaction then most things that are described as objectification of women are not because those other layers are generally present.

For example using an escort "purely for sex", hiring a lap dance, or whistling at women on the street would not be objectification provided that the guy also relates to the woman as a person in those situations simultaneous with the act of viewing her as a sex object.

What you can't do is have it both ways: You can't say viewing someone as a sex object automatically means you are "objectifying" them but then turn around and deny that it's objectification when other levels of interaction are present. You have to pick one definition and stick with it consistently.

As for hating the world...

I didn't mean that to be rude. I'm just saying that you seem to me to be calling "wrong" something that is a fundamental part of our reality as human beings and which cannot be any other way.

This probably relates to your comment on Marx as well: The idea of a communist world equally argues against the reality of the human condition. It isn't going to be, and when a communist argues that people should live according to "to each according to his needs, to each according to their ability" and such they are, in my view, also hating the world, because that is just not the way we are or even can be.

 

[fuji]

In fact, your theoretical argument is not based on reality but on conjecture ~ i.e. that in ideal relationships, objectification and humane behaviour are not necessarily mutually exclusive ... so what! Fact is, objectification can be, and often is, dehumanizing and harmful.

Such as when? Either you pick a definition of "objectification" that allows for the reality of interacting with people on multiple levels, or you insist that if it is objectificaiton then necessarily those other levels are missing.

In the former case objectification in and of itself is never harmful, only the lack of those other levels. In the latter case most things that are commonly described as objectifying women are actually not objectifying women because those other levels of interaction are there.

In Gen's example of a guy on the street looking at some woman's ass if he understands that she is a person with rights and respects her boundaries then according to the stricter definition that is not objectification because he does have those other levels of interaction. Alternately with the less strict definition it's objectification but it isn't harmful because those other levels are present.

Only when those other levels are missing, and he fails to perceive her as a person with rights, is it harmful no matter what you call it.

If objectification is "by definition" harmful then you can never argue that something is harmful because it's objectification--you would FIRST have to demonstrate that it is harmful, before you could be sure it was objectification in the first place. Objectification in that case becomes an empty construct that adds nothing to analysis.

 

[snowleopard]

Fuji, 'Ockkam's razor' will be dull by the time you are finished with it. Your abstract argument is based on so many assumptions that it really becomes pointless. Again, I've already conceded that in an ideal world of ideal human relationships and interactions, objectification would not necessarily be harmful. As Gen has already pointed out, we don't yet live in that world. When we do, please let me know, and I'll send you an apology.