Trigger warning for mentions of rape.
Via Feministe, we have a really startling example of misandry from some gentleman at Aggie Catholics:
Something I never really wanted to post about, but feel I have to, because I don’t think that young women quite understand the problem.
Yesterday when I logged onto Facebook, I had several pictures of college co-eds in bathing suits, who are friends on Facebook, come up on my feed. In response, I posted the following on Facebook as my status:
“A note to young women on Facebook, from a guy who works with young men struggling with pornography…you might look good in your bathing suit, but if you were able to see yourself through 20 year-old male eyes, which are struggling to see you as a human and not an object, you would never post that pic. Just a thought.”
In my opinion, this is one of the more common slurs against male sexuality, commonly created by people who do not understand the concept of “objectification”– that men looking at women sexually are inherently objectifying them.
Objectification means treating a person as an object– i.e., as the opposite of a subject. Think of it like grammar: a subject goes about doing things (in the technical term, it has “agency”); an object has things done to it. For a long time in Western culture women have been treated as objects: the damsel in distress is rescued but does not do much herself, and could generally be replaced with a piece of paper that says MacGuffin on it for all she contributes to the plot.
How does this relate to sex? Sometimes people are treated as “sex objects.” That is, they are passive things to be looked at or have acts performed on them; they themselves have no sexual agency, no ability to choose. I will now provide a helpful guide to things that are and are not objectifying.
Not Objectification: Finding a person attractive.
Objectification: Finding a person’s attractiveness to be the only important thing about a person.
Not Objectification: Having mutualistic, enthusiastic, enjoyable sex.
Objectification: Using another person as a glorified masturbation aid.
Not Objectification: Establishing a relationship, whether casual or committed, with another person.
Objectification: Viewing another person as an annoying impediment to access to their genitalia.
It is important to note that most people who are sexually objectifying are (a) complete douches and (b) not that good in bed.
However, what this gentleman is assuming is that male sexuality is inherently objectifying. That is, that men by definition are incapable of viewing women as people, as opposed to as sexual objects.
I don’t know about you, but I presume that when most people who are attracted to ladies see a picture of a hot lady in a bikini, their reaction is “I would like to engage in mutually pleasurable sex with her!” With kink this gets a little more complicated, but even so it almost always boils down to “I would like to engage in mutually pleasurable sex that looks like it isn’t to an outside observer with her!” or even “I would like to fantasize about engaging in sex that is not mutually pleasurable with her, but if we ever had sex I would like to engage in mutually pleasurable sex with her!” I feel this is the normal person way to go about things.
However, in our culture male sexuality is often viewed as “predatory,” as “degrading,” as “creepy.” Sometimes this gets to the line of rape apologia, as when people suggest that women ought to not wear short skirts or flirt or make out lest men, unable to control themselves, be driven to rape them. (Oddly, these are often the sort of people who think that feminists think that all men are rapists.) And because people live down to low expectations, all too often male sexuality becomes perverted from its natural form into predation.
In this schema, a man looking at a woman in a bikini has to think of her as a pussy with a flap of skin around it. As soon as the penis turns on, the ability to treat women as human beings turns off. The only way men can respect women for their minds and personalities as well as their bodies is for women to dress “modestly,” a word with an ever-changing definition that generally means “a skirt two inches longer than the one you’re wearing.” No man is ever able to treat a woman in a bikini as anything more than a hole to be fucked.
I hope I don’t have to explain how misandric that is.
Side note: One of the commenters on the Feministe post links to a study on objectification cited by the gentleman from Aggie Catholics. What the study actually shows is that men with high levels of hostile sexism tend to objectify women. This tells you some interesting things about the gentleman’s psyche (i.e. all men have high levels of hostile sexism) and is also something that would clearly not be predicted by feminist ideas at all.
Divinity33372 has a great video on ‘objectification’ though a bit heteronormative for my lesbian tastes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts9ivaU8UJQ&feature=feedu
“”(You called me “insane”…isn’t that ableism?)””
Technically it is though not as bad as some other things he’s said in this thread (as I don’t object too much to the slang meaning of that word in certain contexts) as I attempted to point out if my post will ever get out of moderation. I assumed it was because I used “crazy” to point out some of the things he’s been saying but now I’m wondering how all of his posts are getting through.
Yes, Clarence, that is all true. Objectification is necessary in any world where oyu have to interact with peole who are not part of your immediate circle. Basically that’s any adult, or anyone who lives an adult life, let me be more specific. My point is that it is not only hypocritical of (those )feminists (who do) to swing the O word around like it is an unqualified evil, but it also shows a certain childishnes sin that worldview.
Jim:
About that list of negative objectification attributes:
Yes, feminist obviously do some or all of those things at times.
I have my own problems with the simplistic and overgeneralized way that “objectification” is used and dealt with in feminist and “progressive” circles, which I will not talk about right now. However, I will say two things:
A. Inevitably every human being objectifies things.
B. No political philosophy is immune to this.
debaser71:
Thank you for explaining so much of your own beliefs and your posts here and at Feminist Critics. And I agree: when it comes to certain feminist tenants or at least certain types of feminism PZ is not a skeptic at all, but a true believer in the bad sense of that term. He was acting far more “white knight” than skeptical throughout the whole mess.
@blackhumor “I’m not saying that debaser is wrong because he disagrees with PZ. I’m not actually saying anything about debaser disagreeing with PZ per se. What I am saying is that accusing PZ of being not only wrong but unreasonable is insane.” You took a sentence fragment then applied it to PZ when, in fact, the sentence fragment was being applied to the commentors on Pharyngula. I said this, “So in addition to being preachy, judgmental, mean, and hypocritical the PZ horde was also dogmatically clinging to bad reasoning and bad ideas. ” But you said this, “I think anyone… Read more »
@Blackhumour I got someone saying I should be sent to Saudi Arabia to see how women are really treated after I did a vid (I’m valeriereified on Youtube, btw) on EG and false equivalency. I thought that was reprehensible, but I did not proceed to mock the commenter’s sexuality. Do I have inherently more dignity than RW, or is it possible she’s shaming male sexuality because it works well for her political points. PS On a slightly related note, I also got degendered a couple of times too … http://takesupspace.wordpress.com/cis-privilege-checklist/ The Relevant excerpt from the list: “9. Perception/acceptance of my… Read more »
@watson, Paul, Tamen: See, reason this is not an appeal to authority is I’m not saying that debaser is wrong because he disagrees with PZ. I’m not actually saying anything about debaser disagreeing with PZ per se. What I am saying is that accusing PZ of being not only wrong but unreasonable is insane. Gandhi may have been wrong on occasion, but he was never violent, because that would’ve been a betrayal of everything he stood for. Martin Luther King may have been wrong on occasion, but he was never racist, because that would’ve been a betrayal of everything he… Read more »
@Valerie Keefe “found what you had to say interesting and would like to discuss it further over coffee in [his] room,” should just buy real dolls and flesh lights.” *sigh* that is not what she said. She said that EG, who said the first part (after a ton of context you naturally dropped), shouldn’t do that, because it made her uncomfortable. That’s it. Now, the bit about fleshlights and realdolls was not directed at EG. Unless of course EG was also an internet troll. Because that statement was made directly at the people who were trolling her blog, telling her… Read more »
Not sure who PZ is either but I have post up there in moderation that hopefully won’t get lost behind too much discussion. Also, it is somewhat directed at BlackHumour in the second part and I didn’t specify that and figured I ought to.
PZ accommodates. He has also briefly stated a few opinions regarding some of what feminist theory covers (which I disagree with) But my comments here were made towards the PZ horde. Go read the comments in the relevant posts on Pharyngula. It’s ugly. This is the face of feminism to the atheist skeptic and freethinker community. Good luck with that.
And notice here on this blog how I am 1) misquoted 2) taken out of context 3) and then attacked for things I did not say.
Ok, Im going to be really bad here but PZ meyers looks like he could have been the guy on the elevator. 😉
You know, BlackHumor, I just looked “reasonable” up in Miriam-Webster’s dictionary, and indeed, I found: being reasonable: The thing PZ Myers is doing all day, apart from breathing Looks like I was totally wrong and you (and, per definitionem PZ Myers) were absolutely correct. I also found this tidbit of information about “appeal to authority”: “Appeal To Authority is a syllogism which usually has the following form: “You are on one side of an argument. Person X is on the other side of the argument. Ergo, you are wrong.” If Person X is not PZ Myers, this conclusion is not… Read more »
@BlackHumour PZ Meyers can be a prominent skeptic and an embarrassment to skeptics the same way the trans rights movement can distance itself from the operative essentialists… Yes, he’s been accommodating towards Rebecca Watson and her public shaming of EG and then sexual assault survivor Richard Dawkins, he has. That is not the same thing as being reasonable. A reasonable person would beg to differ with a woman who said that people like EG who in her words “found what you had to say interesting and would like to discuss it further over coffee in [his] room,” should just buy… Read more »
@Blackhumor: “I’m not appealing to authority, I’m saying that “PZ Myers is being unreasonable” is as silly a claim as “Martin Luther King is being racist” or “Gandhi is being violent”. The only reason those claims are inherently unreasonable is because both those individuals are dead and aren’t able to “be” anything. BH, I don’t really know who PZ Meyers is, and I don’t really care. (far as I’m concerned, athiests and religious people are right about in the same spots on the asshole-spectrum) but the way you’re going on about him, I’d half suspect you of having a shrine… Read more »
I am pretty sure this PZ Myers guy is a human and no humans are immune to being hit by the stupid stick occasionally as far as I know. Gandhi were a racist and urged the Indian population in South Africa to join the 1906 Zulu war before he became known for his non-violence stance.
I think anyone who accuses PZ Myers of “clinging to bad reasoning and bad ideas” should take a long look at themselves. That’s like accusing MLK of racism; come on, you can’t be serious. I’m not really familiar with Myers’ blog but I’ve read on several atheist blogs that his skeptical thinking ends when it comes to feminism. Actually, the first time I heard about his blog was when a highly reasonable blogger/commenter mentioned it. A female commenter accused him of stalking her and Meyers banned him. What he actually did was something completely common. He tells the story on Toysoldier’s blog… Read more »
@elementary_watson: I’m not appealing to authority, I’m saying that “PZ Myers is being unreasonable” is as silly a claim as “Martin Luther King is being racist” or “Gandhi is being violent”.
The thing that PZ Myers does is be reasonable. That is all he does. All day. I’m only half joking here.
@debaser: Anyone who claims PZ fucking Myers is an embarrassment to skeptics should look very skeptically at their own arguments.
Seriously. PZ Myers. You just said PZ Myers is an embarrassment to skeptics. That doesn’t make you take pause for a bit? Putting PZ Myers and unskeptical in the same sentence doesn’t seem wrong to you at all?
Not that he can’t be wrong, but he certainly won’t be wrong without good reason.
“I think anyone who accuses PZ Myers of “clinging to bad reasoning and bad ideas” should take a long look at themselves. That’s like accusing MLK of racism; come on, you can’t be serious.”
Regardless of right or wrong, but I guess any skeptic worth his/her salt would be unhappy with an appeal to authority argument …
Wow… the borgification of men and the presumption of motives based on a single frigging word is fairly blatant in that “hello” thread.
How they can go from claiming to know any particular guy’s motivations from a single word on one hand, to stating that “all women are individuals” on the other shall probably forever remain a mystery to me.
I admit, I have never quite been sure about where Elevator Guy went wrong. Even under the presumption that the coffee meant sex. He asked her back to his place for some consensual coffee and when she refused he backed down. That seems model behavior? Maybe I am drawing too strongly from experiences in the queer community but generally one can fairly easily ask for sex, coffee euphemism may or may not be included, then if the guy refuses that’s the end of it. I always found this a bit ideal. Sure there’s some guys that don’t take a hint… Read more »
PZ is *gasp* wrong and IMO an embarrassment to skeptics.
It’s pretty clear this blog isn’t what I thought it was.
@debaser: You realize that PZ himself is not on your side, right?
I think anyone who accuses PZ Myers of “clinging to bad reasoning and bad ideas” should take a long look at themselves. That’s like accusing MLK of racism; come on, you can’t be serious.
This is what Wikipedia says Martha Nussbaum defined objectification: “This term is also used to describe the treatment of a human being as a thing, disregarding his/her personality or sentience. Philosopher Martha Nussbaum[1] has argued that something is objectified if any of the following factors is present: Instrumentality – if the thing is treated as a tool for one’s own purposes; Denial of autonomy – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency or self-determination; Inertness – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency; Ownership – if the thing is treated as if owned by… Read more »