Correct me if I'm wrong but that is opposite of what you recommended in your earlier post. To paraphrase you you recommended to be bold and ask the woman the question, concerning her attire. Considering what you just said in the foregoing statement, do you think a man would be encouraged to ask such a question after what you just said (about being perturbed)? — 3017amen
If you can’t make a distinction in your words between asking someone why they chose to wear a particular top and telling someone that you don’t like what they’re wearing, then I can’t help you. If what you say comes across as a judgement on their actions instead of expressing interest in how they think, then you probably should take a good look at your use of language. — Possibility
I don't understand. Are you saying that if it looks like a duck walks like a duck and acts like a duck, that it's not a duck?
Perhaps this question is easier for you. Can any object be objectified rightly or wrongly? Hint: a beauty pageant. — 3017amen
What would be the reasons why there are so many women in pornography? If it's to feed into the male narrative that sounds pretty empowering LoL — 3017amen
No person, woman, man or any other kind of rational being, wishes to be treated like an object. I could say that without much understanding of anything in the world; it is simple logic. “Objectification” means turning something into an object (presumably something that wasn’t originally an object) and the only thing that isn’t an object, is a person.I don't understand women all that well. I see women railing against their objectification by men and yet the choices they make in their clothing suggests they wish to be treated as such. — TheMadFool
I don’t believe much in asking people why they perform their habitual actions. You may of course get the right answer, but it’s also likely that they don’t have sufficient self-consciousness to see through their own real reasons. Very often a psychologist would do a better job explaining their behavior, and sometimes simple logic does the trick.you could take the time to ASK her if there’s a particular reason why she wore that outfit today - and then LISTEN to what she has to say. — Possibility
person, woman, man or any other kind of rational being, wishes to be treated like an object. I could say that without much understanding of anything in the world; it is simple logic. “Objectification” means turning something into an object (presumably something that wasn’t originally an object) and the only thing that isn’t an object, is a person. — Congau
A duck is not just an object, any more than a scantily clad woman is just an object. To objectify what is not just an object is to deny that it’s anything more - not a living, feeling creature, or a thinking human being. — Possibility
It’s not a particularly effective way by today’s standards, but pageants originated in a world where women didn’t have much in the way of a voice. Miss America, as an example, has gradually evolved into a scholarship programme for young women. — Possibility
As a young teen, my father’s most frequent comment to me was that I was “growing more beautiful every day”. He genuinely believed he was paying me a compliment - which he was - but what I internalised was that my high academic achievements and my thoughts or opinions were unimportant, because they were never acknowledged by the one male whose opinion mattered the most to me. And what mattered most to him was how I looked. These experiences are formative, and are reinforced with almost every other male encounter. I eventually managed a good education despite this, and I’m not against complimenting women (or men) on their appearance. But it’s what isn’t acknowledged that can have an insidious effect. This kind of ‘casual objectification’ is so common and invisible that men just cannot see the work that needs to be done and the lack of genuine opportunities for a woman to reclaim agency without either directly attacking the male narrative or feeding into it and then looking for ways to co-opt it. — Possibility
It’s not anyone’s fault - it is what it is. I just wish men wouldn’t make it so difficult by continuing to assume (and refusing to hear otherwise) that a woman’s inner world and subjective experience is a reflection (or subset) of a man’s. Recognise that your disagreement with what I’m saying might actually be because you’ve never experienced what women are thinking or feeling - you’re making your own subjective assessment of my words and behaviour, based on a limited experience. — Possibility
It's a no-brainer to suggest human beings are more than purely/exclusively objective-objects. — 3017amen
It's a no-brainer, that exclusive objectification of women in a moral way is unacceptable nor something to be valued in an ethical way. — 3017amen
The objectification of objects is objectionable in certain cases. — Ciceronianus the White
I don’t believe much in asking people why they perform their habitual actions. You may of course get the right answer, but it’s also likely that they don’t have sufficient self-consciousness to see through their own real reasons. Very often a psychologist would do a better job explaining their behavior, and sometimes simple logic does the trick. — Congau
I don't claim to understand women, or men for that matter, in terms of inherently irrational sexual relations. But your question seems to be confusing Political objectification with Sexual objectification. Young girls quickly learn, by observation or via the grapevine, what boys are looking for in girls. And what they discover is that boys tend to be analytical about casual sex. By that I mean they typically focus on body parts instead of the whole person. So the girls are merely being pragmatic when they emphasize their best features to make themselves attractive --- meanwhile hoping that their personality will seal the deal for a long term and loving relationship.I don't understand women all that well. I see women railing against their objectification by men and yet the choices they make in their clothing suggests they wish to be treated as such. — TheMadFool
But that's not what you or I were arguing. The point was you were in denial of the impact of physical appearances on human beings. You seem to think it has minimal bearing or impact on the human condition relative to decision making viz romantic relations. Or you were at least downplaying it, whereas I was arguing (in paraphrase) that the appreciation of it was that to be cherished and nurtured and above all, embraced for what it is. — 3017amen
However, this is once again a confusing ethical treatment of an objectification standard. On the one hand, you seem to be encouraging men to ask questions about aesthetical concerns, yet you admit it perturbs you when and if you're asked. — 3017amen
A similar story was that when I was married, at one point in the relationship I told my spouse (and I remember specifically) "you only like/love me for the way I look". This was all in the context of me going through growing pains in the relationship, as well as interacting with an introvert, who seemingly did not care about the 'mind and spirit' part of the mind, body, spirit connection.
And so when you concluded that "...what mattered most to him was how I looked" I completely understand the frustration. — 3017amen
But here's the thing, I really don't see women trying to change the stereotype much. But admittingly, at the same time, I couldn't tell you how to be. Meaning, if we (men and/or women) appreciate physical beauty and/or femininity for the sake of itself, what would be considered the intrinsic value there? Sure, to broad-brush it, we should all strive to seek balance in all aspects of the mind-body-spirit 'equasion', and discourage mutually exclusive thinking, but what is the purpose of aesthetics? — 3017amen
Can you elaborate a bit more on that please? Being a so-called sensitive man myself (or a bit more right-brain sided if you like), I hear what you are saying, and feeling. Of course, Maslow said "what you are not you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you" is indeed, seemingly alive and well here. And so, sure, because I'm not you, I don't completely understand. However, what is very intriguing to say the least, is your point "...that a woman's inner world is a reflection (or subset) of a man's."
Men and women are meant to be together. And life is about relationships (friendships, collaborations, colleagues, companions, partners, etc.). And with that, your notion that women's thinking is a sub-set of a man's, through that awareness, only helps to enlighten those who are ignorant (we are all ignorant to a greater or lessor extent) about the many aspects of the human condition. To this end, please share your thoughts... . — 3017amen
I don't claim to understand women, or men for that matter, in terms of inherently irrational sexual relations. But your question seems to be confusing Political objectification with Sexual objectification. Young girls quickly learn, by observation or via the grapevine, what boys are looking for in girls. And what they discover is that boys tend to be analytical about casual sex. By that I mean they typically focus on body parts instead of the whole person. So the girls are merely being pragmatic when they emphasize their best features to make themselves attractive --- meanwhile hoping that their personality will seal the deal for a long term and loving relationship. — Gnomon
A beautiful and successful actress on a talk show was asked about the long slit in her ankle length skirt. And she matter-of-factly answered that she was not well-endowed up top, so she decided to "show some leg" --- to put her best foot forward, so to speak. She didn't seem to object to being Sexually objectified by the "male gaze" of the audience. — Gnomon
More recently, a beautiful actress in a skit was analyzing herself in the mirror --- as she wondered why she couldn't hold on to a man. The sensible & practical alter ego in the mirror suggested a boob job. And the skit was written by the flat-chested actress! — Gnomon
To be it blunty: there is literally nothing wrong with wanting to be fucked or wanting to fuck for the sheer pleasure of it, so long as everyone's in on the game and it doesn't lead to compromizing other mechanisms of a healthy life. Objectification is not a problem in itself. There's something very alluring in being treated as a sheer object, and treating someone else like that in turn, so long as there's transparency on both sides. It's not necessarily easy to do, and requires alot of fine treading to do well sometimes. It's important to recognize when things start to become unhealthy or toxic, or when people exploit asymmetries of sexual power or attraction. — StreetlightX
Objectification is about eroding or ignoring agency - treating them as an object is failing to recognise them as a thinking, feeling human being with options or a voice. — Possibility
The objectification of objects is objectionable in certain cases.
— Ciceronianus the White
That begs the question, why would it be objectional if the object is a material object? — 3017amen
When it is the ONLY factor in human relations, that is objectification, and a denial of one’s humanity at the very least. — Possibility
There are so many women in pornography because they continue to be denied agency by other means. And there is so much demand in the industry. — Possibility
but less so in others, including romantic relations. — Possibility
This is very different to repeated experiences forming your patterns of self-awareness. — Possibility
Physical beauty is only one attribute or aspect of a thinking, feeling person - if you interact with them as if it’s the only one that has value for you, then you objectify that person. — Possibility
Life is about developing our relationship with the world (not just with other people), and relating to what makes no sense to us at all, as an indication that we have something to learn about reality beyond our experiences, is how we increase awareness, connection and collaboration. You don’t have to agree with what I value - you just need to recognise that what I value contributes to what it means to be human. — Possibility
I guess my point is that sometimes you don't want to be treated as a 'thinking, feeling human being'. Like - fuck me and leave and never talk to me again and certaintly don't ask me about my aspirations (because that would be crossing the line). Like, respect my agency by not getting into my personal life, by keeping this sexually transactional (or better, let's respect each other's agency by doing so).
But I get your point - as long as everyone's on the same page, and both (or more!) parties are OK that situation - that one has permission, as it were, to be treated like that, then that's cool. I dunno how to put it - like an agental suspension of agency maybe. — StreetlightX
Ah, now there are material objects. Is this a subset of physical objects (the set in which we're included)? If so, what is the distinction between material objects and other physical objects in general; in particular, the distinction between material objects and the physical objects you say we are? Is that distinction related to your claim that we're "more than purely/exclusively objective-objects"? Or are we material objects as well? — Ciceronianus the White
Then please explain love-as-attachment cognition. Baby sees mom, mom leaves baby, baby cries? Is the infant objectifying the mother? — 3017amen
I'm not following you there, how is their material agency being denied? (Are they not using their material agency to empower their way of Being?) — 3017amen
I don’t even know what you mean by ‘material agency’ — Possibility
When a woman sees her only value in the world as a pretty object for men to play with and use in patriarchal narratives, then her agency is being denied. — Possibility
But at the end of the day, the problem is that she has been denied agency in the first place. She never has a chance to perceive her value in being other than a pretty object for men to play with. — Possibility
I agree - casual sex is an unspoken agreement that the ‘relationship’ is only the sexual encounter - but this is not a suspension of agency. I think there’s a difference between a fuck that denies agency and one which respects that you have preferences and choices during the sexual encounter, even if we never speak again after. — Possibility
But I get your point - as long as everyone's on the same page, and both (or more!) parties are OK that situation - that one has permission, as it were, to be treated like that, then that's cool. I dunno how to put it - like an agental suspension of agency maybe. — StreetlightX
No, the baby is not objectifying the mother, but rather learning that his physical identity is not inclusive of the mother, despite the connection and collaboration. He is learning to recognise and value non-physical connections with the world. — Possibility
Great questions CW. Why don't you start another thread. — 3017amen
The psychologist wouldn’t necessarily have to ask a question about the exact issue at hand to make a qualified assumption. After having gotten to know his patient he might for example have acquired a better understanding of why she wears high-heeled shoes than she has herself. If he asked her and received the reply “because high heeled shoes are comfortable”, he may have good reasons to disregard that answer altogether.A psychologist would never make an assumption without asking that question — Possibility
When asked a question about oneself, “the inner process” that is supposedly revealed is sometimes quite irrelevant to the question. The person might try to think of a clever answer that really has nothing to do with what she has previously thought. That wouldn’t even be false consciousness but fail to express any consciousness at all.It isn’t about getting the ‘right’ answer, but about recognising that she has her own inner process — Possibility
The issues set in when objectification shifts from interpersonal to social or political - when men or women become objects at a level of media portrayal or social policy or whathaveyou. When objectification becomes the dominant mode of social understanding of gender or gender relations. — StreetlightX
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.