Is Objectification such a bad thing?

[genintoronto]

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.

If I'm following your reasoning, it goes back to what I was saying earlier in the thread: objectification is a social concept to describe a social phenomenon. As such, it is meaningless to try to define it or understand in a vacuum, ie, outside of its social context.

The social context in which objectification is usually talked about (ie, the world we live in) is an unequal one, with multiple and interconnected layers of unequal power relations. Objectification simultaneously creates the conditions of possibilities for those unequal social relationships to be maintained, and is made possible through those unequal power dynamics.

Can anyone tell me if that Abdomenizer exercise machine really works?

You really crack me up sometimes.

 

[snowleopard]

If I'm following your reasoning, it goes back to what I was saying earlier in the thread: objectification is a social concept to describe a social phenomenon. As such, it is meaningless to try to define it or understand in a vacuum, ie, outside of its social context.

The social context in which objectification is usually talked about (ie, the world we live in) is an unequal one, with multiple and interconnected layers of unequal power relations. Objectification simultaneously creates the conditions of possibilities for those unequal social relationships to be maintained, and is made possible through those unequal power dynamics.

D'accord

 

[a 1 player]

My objective is to be objectified.

I object to that!

 

[snowleopard]

I object to that!

Over ruled

 

[fuji]

The social context in which objectification is usually talked about (ie, the world we live in) is an unequal one, with multiple and interconnected layers of unequal power relations.

That's true.

Objectification simultaneously creates the conditions of possibilities for those unequal social relationships to be maintained, and is made possible through those unequal power dynamics.

I agree with the first half of your statement: Eating food, too, creates the conditions, so does breathing air, so does pretty much everything that enables us to function or relate to one another.

However I do not see any evidence anywhere that the second part of your statement is true: Objectification exists with or without the unequal relationships. You do not need unequal relationships in order to have objectification.

You still haven't drawn any connection between objectification and harm. The argument presented here is pretty much like saying air is bad, because if people couldn't breathe they wouldn't be able to do bad things.

 

[fuji]

Again, I've already conceded that in an ideal world of ideal human relationships and interactions, objectification would not necessarily be harmful.

Nowhere is there any evidence that objectification is harmful in any world.

 

[snowleopard]

Nowhere is there any evidence that objectification is harmful in any world.

sure ... and nowhere is there any evidence that words are harmful in any world ...

when taken out of any context in which they are in fact used in a harmful way.

I'll concede that in the abstract nothing is harmful ... not even bombs ... just a harmless combination of metal, ignition devices and explosives ... until you drop them on people.

Maybe bombs aren't a good example, as they are designed for the expressed purpose of killing. Let's take brooms then. Designed to sweep floors. Inherently harmless. Unless one chooses to use it to beat the crap out of someone.

So yes, in an abstract sense, objectification is totally harmless ... it is how one intends to use it that can be harmful.

Thanks for edifying us on that blatantly self-evident point.

 

[red]

there is no business like show business

 

[red]

I blame george bush for the early change from daylight savings time

 

[WoodPeckr]

But Dubya said it would make the US more energy independent.

 

[fuji]

I'll concede that in the abstract nothing is harmful

There is no evidence that objectification is harmful in the real world either.

 

[snowleopard]

There is no evidence that objectification is harmful in the real world either.

Is there an echo in here?

 

[fuji]

Is there an echo in here?

Sorry but I'm just not going to take your word for it that it's harmful. You're going to have to make some point that explains why it would be harmful. In every example presented on this thread so far it's been pretty clear that it was not objectification, but lack of something else, that was harmful.

I was kind of hoping for a nice debate on this topic, but it's been too easy. So much for the "massacre" a1player, sorry to disappoint!

 

[snowleopard]

Sorry but I'm just not going to take your word for it that it's harmful. You're going to have to make some point that explains why it would be harmful. In every example presented on this thread so far it's been pretty clear that it was not objectification, but lack of something else, that was harmful.

I was kind of hoping for a nice debate on this topic, but it's been too easy. So much for the "massacre" a1player, sorry to disappoint!

You're right fuji, close-minded self-delusion is 'too easy.'

I can't make my case any clearer, and there is clearly no point in trying, but what the hell, I'll repeat myself.

Human objectification is by definition dualistic and divisive, because, of necessity, it separates the world into self and not-self. As such, it is the basis for all possible human conflict, because the concept of self/not-self, by extension, leads to dichotomies such as: us/them, friend/foe, good/evil, righteous/unrighteous, worthy/unworthy, etc, etc. Without such polarized points of view, all conflict becomes impossible, whether it be between individuals, nations, ethnicities, races, religions, sexes, or whatever war you choose. Why? Because without objectification, there is no separation, and hence no other point of view. In other words, we all would be of one mind (perhaps not a bad thing, according to Buddhist philosophy)

Once again, only in an ideal world in which all human relationships are equal, and based on mutual trust, respect and love, is it possible for objectification to not cause harm. To believe otherwise, seems to me to be hopelessly naive.

In any case, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, because you are never going to agree with my point of view, and I am never going to agree with yours.

And since nobody else really gives a shit, and, like Gen, I'm now bored with the whole thing, I'm done with this thread. Nice chatting with you, nonetheless.

btw, feel free to repeat yourself as well, if it makes you happy

 

[red]

Sorry but I'm just not going to take your word for it that it's harmful. You're going to have to make some point that explains why it would be harmful. In every example presented on this thread so far it's been pretty clear that it was not objectification, but lack of something else, that was harmful.

I was kind of hoping for a nice debate on this topic, but it's been too easy. So much for the "massacre" a1player, sorry to disappoint!

let me come over their and treat you like an object. will that be real world enough for you.

 

[fuji]

Human objectification is by definition dualistic and divisive, because, of necessity, it separates the world into self and not-self. As such...

Sounds like you are arguing against human consciousness period. This is where my hate-the-world comment comes from, which was not intended to be rude--you are arguing that things that are fundamental to consciousness are wrong.

leads to dichotomies such as: us/them, friend/foe, good/evil, righteous/unrighteous, worthy/unworthy, etc, etc.

Yup, in other words, human consciousness.

Without such polarized points of view, all conflict becomes impossible

And not just conflict, all human thought becomes impossible.

Once again, only in an ideal world in which all human relationships are equal, and based on mutual trust, respect and love, is it possible for objectification to not cause harm. To believe otherwise, seems to me to be hopelessly naive.

Other than saying that you think existence itself is harmful, and that objectification is part of existence, you haven't actually made any specific point that objectification is more harmful than, say, self awareness.

(To wit, your point above equally applies to the self/other dichotemy.)

 

[hickorysticks]

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.

This argument doesn't stand due to your willing participation in the sex trade business... which unfortunately serves to prove if such objectification exists, it is existential to woman's beliefs rather than men's.