Speaking of objectification, if I’d read Amber of Being Amber Rhea before I wrote this morning’s HNT post I’d have done it somewhat differently. Amber writes about a woman she was in a class with
there was a woman in the class who looked like a poster girl for The Beauty Myth. Long blonde hair, (fake) tanned skin, (artifically) bright white teeth, tall (but not too tall!), thin (but not too thin!), and I don’t remember what color her eyes were but if I had to take a wild guess, I’d say blue. Oh, and big tits (but not too big!).
When I saw her on the first day of class, I automatically felt distrustful and suspicious of her. I found myself having thoughts such as, “I bet she’s really full of herself,” and, “Why’s she taking this class, she probably knows how to do all this stuff already anyway.” -And that last thought made me go, screeeeeech! (That’s supposed to be the sound of brakes.) Whoa! WTF? Where is this coming from? Am I in 8th grade, for fuck’s sake? These thoughts are totally unfair!
She turned out to be a nice woman, no more or less so than any of the other women in the class. And yet as soon as I saw her, I had begun to draw irrational conclusions based on her appearance alone. And this really caught me off-guard, because it happened automatically. Gah, I’ve been programmed by society! Looks like I’ve got a lot more work to do when it comes to unpacking all that societal baggage!
In other words Amber initially did what a lot of us do: reduced another human being, reduced her to a set of lines, curves, shadows, and colors. True, she reduced her to an object of derision instead of one of desire, but…
I guess the question is whether it’s only unacceptable to objectify someone sexually, if it’s fine to reduce them to, say, an object of derision just because of the way he or she looks?
Submitted by 949 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-09-28 12:31.
I think people often make too big of a deal about ojectification, sexual or otherwise. We ALL do it. What matters is if you can move past whatever preconcieved notion you associate with that "object' and recognize there is more to them than the visual.
[Yup. I'm actually fairly moderate about it, meaning objectification is ok if you're willing to look for the "who" as well as the "what" in people. But it does seem that one should expect a little consistency from people who strongly object. Thanks, RE. --fl]
Submitted by 949 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-09-28 19:44.
I guess the question is whether it's only unacceptable to objectify someone *sexually,* if it's fine to reduce them to, say, an object of *derision* just because of the way he or she looks?
Well, there seem to be two interrelated parts to what people mean when they use the word "objectification."
Meaning one: evaluating just someone's appearance, without regard to whatever other qualities they have.
Meaning two: you get to be the subject of your desire, the other person is the object; her wishes don't count.
I think this is one way that wires get crossed, when people talk about objectification, and some will say a little of it is OK, everyone does it, they'd even be flattered to be objectified a bit. And all of that involves objectification in sense one. Because, though that kind of objectification can be bad, too (you certainly don't want to be reduced to your appearance when you're aiming to be respected as a computer programmer), people can be OK with just being admired for their frivolous qualities.
But the second kind of objectification I don't think anyone wants. Even if you want to act the part of the sexy object of someone's desire, and be pursued, you want to be the sexy object of someone's desire who gets to say by whom and how you like to be pursued.
[Good point about the equivocal nature of the term. As to the second point, I agree that without the autonomy and individuality that is possible only in the presence of consent, the kind of objectification we're talking about is deadly serious business. And I think that's the dimension that made me nervous about Anonymous's comment to RE: based on what really wasn't enough information at all she seemed ready to reduce RE to an object in the absolute sense of something that could or should be "erased." Thank you, Lynn. --fl]