This post is in response to a post by one of my favorite bloggers, Alderson Warm-Fork, who was discussing two of my favorite topics: animal liberation and the objectification of women.
This passage, in particular, piqued my interest:
How does this relate to PETA adverts showing nude or effectively-nude women? This trend, this societal obsession with the naked female form, fits the definition of objectification because it “emphasises and prioritises” the things that can be done to that form – things ranging from ‘desiring’, ‘fantasising about’, to ‘touching’ and ‘having sex with’. Even the action of ‘seeing’ is emphasised – the whole point is not just what this woman looks like but that she is showing herself. No individual image need carry such an emphasis – the pattern of endless repetition clearly does so.
And as with animals, objectification is linked with violence. If the principal feature of women is their suitability to be acted upon, to be seen and desired and touched and had sex with, then their other traits (such as the ability to choose, to make rational decisions) are obscured, and actions, such as rape or harassment, which conform to that ‘essential nature’ (sexual object) while conflicting with the secondary trait (rational chooser) make a lot more sense. Indeed, if a woman’s essence is to be desired, then any action which displays desire, from wolf-whistling to badgering her into unwanted sex, can be seen as a ‘compliment’, a benevolent act.
I encourage everyone to read the entire post. It makes some very compelling points.
Most of which I will not address. These are simply some thoughts that occurred to me while I read:
Are women objectified by being nude? Or are women objectified only when their nudity is interpreted as sexual?
Are women objectified by being photographed? Or is it by how they are photographed? Or is objectification projected on women by the audience itself?
Is the female body somehow guilty because of its power to provoke desire? Is it her weapon? Is she obscene? Then should her body be suppressed, if only for her own sake?
And is the notion of the male gaze still relevant, particularly now that women take active agency in the creation of their own images? Or are female photographers so acculturated to viewing ourselves as sexually fetishized objects, that we just unconsciously follow convention in further exploiting ourselves and others?
As a female photographer who takes self-portraits, these are some of the questions I contemplate daily and have argued about for years.
My own opinion is that I do not experience either nudity or overt sexuality as being harmful to women.
And I do not think that it is necessarily harmful when women are depicted as objects (eg. as inanimate “landscapes”, or as objects of desire).
It is the perceptions attached to nude portraits of women that are problematic and the contexts in which they appear that are so often imbued with negative meanings.
What is unfortunate is that so many women seem to be seeking the understanding of their identity and evaluations of their worth and value through the experience of being a coveted object. It is as if the Self can only perceive itself and be validated through the eyes of others. It is as if to say, “I am an object. Therefore, I am useful. When I am a thing, I can serve a purpose — if not to myself, then to serve others.”
I believe that objectification of the female body does become insidious and dehumanizing when it is linked to the notions of property, commerce, and commodification.
I see the female image as being dehumanized through a specific association with “products” — which are pristine, homogenized, available for purchase, expendable, and disposable.
For example, I once heard a beauty contestant talking about how the industry will grade and evaluate a contestant by the same criteria as livestock: by her proportion, dimensions, and symmetry. Instead of achieving her value through her individuality and uniqueness, she is reduced to an ideal type specimen. These contests are for eugenic fantasists to categorize and classify women according to breed.
Mainstream commercial images further promote images of women who are surgically “enhanced” with silicone and fillers, synthetic hair and plastic nails, veneered teeth and artificial eye color; an essentially “man-made” and mass-produced version of Woman who is created by men for men. She is an improvement on Nature, designed for a sexual purpose, eternally tight and young, and she won’t even rot when she dies — just sent back to the factory for recycling, one supposes.
These examples epitomize objectification, as I understand it.
And I think that it is through these depictions of women as domesticated, as manufactured, as sexual currency, as marital property, as perishable items, and as inherently indistinguishable one from another, that our humanity becomes threatened.
But, in the final equation, this is just a symptom. To some extent, men will continue to have contempt for women and women have contempt for themselves because of the gross inequities that we continue to suffer as a group; economically, politically, legally, and socially. Many of us have always been too tolerant, too patient, too polite, too compromising, and too accommodating. Passivity is a quality that is scarcely respected in this competitive world of materialism and aggression.
In light of the severe injustices done to women globally, concern over our image is minutia. Image is not what is important. The self-esteem and confidence that comes from being truly equal is what matters. And women have yet to achieve this goal, anywhere in the world.
Even if we never saw another nude photo of a woman ever again, it wouldn’t do any good. Sexual repression and censorship are an even worse form of enslavement. When our bodies are viewed as taunting obscenities, women are blamed for their own victimization.
It is when simple nudity is no longer viewed as a manipulative ploy or a slavish capitulation to inequity, we will have finally achieved our sexual liberation. It is our perceived complicity with injustice, I believe, that robs of us of respect.
(I also want to say that this situation puts attractive and disenfranchised women in an ironic and untenable position; play the game, be a nice tamed little pet, feather your nest, and you are a traitor to your sex. Or refuse, and suffer the hardships alone in the wilderness where you can starve and be righteous. Just like desperate little animals, with children in tow, women are tempted to trade in their feral freedom for the captive security of the leash. Alas, the grateful, suffocating, soul-destroying love of a warm lap and a handout!)
Power differentials will likely always be intrinsic to sexual expression. Specific attitudes provoke predictable responses. That is, when I appear vulnerable, you feel strong; when I appear passive, you feel aggressive; when I appear dominant, you feel challenged. Without this shifting interplay, sexual interest is difficult to provoke. Attempts to create a politically-correct erotica, for instance, have fallen flat. This is why, I suspect, there has been a backlash of interest in BDSM in the last decade. Sexually speaking, someone has to get on top — like it or not, there will be no defeating the will of Nature.
Advertising has very specific motives in provoking a response in the viewer. In particular, advertising wants men to feel strong and virile. It doesn’t want to make men feel threatened and arouse their castration anxieties. Flaccidity is bad for business. So, for this reason, images indicating female submission will always receive undue emphasis in economies where men continue to have the lion’s share.
Finally, as passionate as I am about abolishing animal captivity, I feel strongly that we need to close the deal on the business of liberating women before we can begin effectively and successfully negotiating for the liberation of the beasts, fish, and fowl.
© Laura Chase and DOMINO, 2009. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given, and with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
“I’m an opera singer, not a pin-up!”
-Yolande Betbeze, 1951 Miss America winner refuses to make any further public appearances in swimsuit.
Her rebellion creates the first great schism in beauty pageant politics.
Women ‘200 years behind’ in drive for boardroom equality
Women have failed to make an impression among the elite group of rich and powerful people who control Britain’s boardrooms and public bodies, according to a report published today by the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC).
Unless there is a dramatic change in recruitment and promotion, it will take 200 years to achieve an equal number of women in Parliament, 60 years to win parity in City boardrooms and 40 years to reach equality among the judiciary.
Women make up just 10 per cent of the directors of FTSE 100 companies and barely 20 per cent of MPs, according to Sex and Power: Who Runs Britain? 2007, which looks at women in the public and private sectors. The report warns that change at the top is too slow, and in some cases has gone into reverse.
Corporate boards still lacking equal female representation, author says
Douglas Branson is a professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh and a specialist in corporate governance. His most recent book, “No Seat at the Table: How Corporate Governance and Law Keep Women Out of the Boardroom,” was published in December by NYU Press.
Women still missing at the table
Corporate Canada has few women at its boardroom tables and there is little evidence that the situation will change anytime soon.
So much here to comment on, so much to take in, but eloquently stated, cogently expressed. It seems ironic that places where women are most oppressed are where sexualized images of woman are least common, where women, by law, must desexualize themselves in public. I don’t think the answer is for women then to refrain from any kind of sensual expression, the solution is for men to take responsibility for their responses to this natural celebration of our femininity. As for freeing all animals, well, I’ve left the door open and the dogs just don’t seem to want to leave.
Yes. Very good points.
I think the reaction to nude photography is complicated by the fact that so many women are compelled to participate for money rather than the personal pleasure of self-expression.
It is just too easy for society to deprive women of an adequate living and then accuse them of whoredom when they dare to survive — or thrive.
Thank you for reading, Gabriela. I am privileged by your participation on my blog.
PS.
The dogs phoned me. They said to tell you that they aren’t going anywhere until you give them their balls back.
They can have their balls back when they catch up on all the child support they owe to their bitches; otherwise, they can just stand in line for their balls, behind Guy Ritchie.
You’re a whip!
I take what you say about the importance of context and interpretation, but surely in the actual world we inhabit, in most of the public sphere, interpretation is largely out of the artist’s hands? You may intend an image in one way, but if it’s plastered on billboards next to the motorway, the dominant culture will decide what it ‘means’.
Which isn’t any argument against nude photography per se. It’s like being in a big crowd of people walking in different directions – if most people are walking in one direction, then it will be hard to move against that, and easy to go along with it, but going along with it may also be reproducing that ease/difficulty for other individuals.
You say “Even if we never saw another nude photo of a woman ever again, it wouldn’t do any good”. I’m not so sure. I think images can influence people and their behaviour. Scientifically we don’t have enough data to say how and to what extent, but evidence of effects per se is quite strong.
I get the impression you were worried that my post suggested a woman might be “a traitor to your sex”, which wasn’t the goal. Apportioning personal responsibility is often a waste of time, and is especially pointless when considering the actions of people in difficult circumstances trying to get by. The point is just to understand the social dynamics.
You also say “I feel strongly that we need to close the deal on the business of liberating women before we can begin effectively and successfully negotiating for the liberation of the beasts, fish, and fowl.”
If the point is just a prediction that we will probably resolve sexual issues before we resolve species issues, then that may well be true. But I don’t know what this implies in practice – that we should ‘hold off’ agitating for animals? I’m not sure.
It wasn’t your post in specific that instigated my comments.
I am just venting my usual ire about how dissipated energies have undermined the success of women collectively. I have an entire lifetime of frustration that boils over every time I think about it.
As 52% of the population, women are the dominant culture — but unfortunately, as a majority we really are distractedly walking in different directions, competing against one another, trifling, and losing sight of the big picture.
I believe that until women get behind their leaders, prioritize and re-focus on the fundamentals of equality as key goals, and unite to achieve those objectives with a sensible step-by-step tactical strategy, that nothing substantive can ever be accomplished.
With teamwork we could achieve anything we wanted. We could have, we should have by now.
But I have a growing cynicism within me, whispering that the reason that this hasn’t happened is that women don’t really want to lead or risk being free, and so sabotage the effort. There must be a certain comfort level with where we’re at now, and with how we slog on.
If you want a dire prediction, I’ll give you one: the final irony will be when the dogs get liberated before I am.
Oh dear, I am now extremely flattered by your brief visit to my blog, due to my discovery that you are extremely and elegantly articulate. I am still a bit of a child in writing, blogging, and life for that matter. So your notice is appreciated.
Hey Bailey. Nice to see you here.
Your post about women and friendship shares a common theme with mine: women: insecurity, competition, and hostility.
We live in a political and economic climate which encourages these negative behaviors. If women were ever to learn to co-operate as a team we might bring the entire system down like a stag and then eat it alive.
My favorite line of your post was:
“… we are going to have to understand that who we are is not diminished by who someone else is.”
That sentiment says a great deal about your character, so I am impressed likewise.
Viva.
Why doesn’t anyone objectify me?… well, other than myself.
Opportunities are available.
Here’s an article and documentary clip about how mainstream commercial photography treats young female models. The keyword is “disposable”.
Unlike art, where models are muses — advertising promulgates an attitude that women are expendable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jun/07/sara-ziff-teen-modelling-fashion
Neither here this moment to agree or augment anything as you’ve already stated here, but one simple notion comes to mind. As per some of the Middle Eastern cultures where a woman must hide her physical self away, lest men be uncontrollably invoked into response. A pretty revealing amendment that is onto a more basic regard, person to person, any person. I don’t care so much how a woman (or man) cares to expose or express themselves, although I would wish whatever a person’s choice, that it be freely given and nurture how they experience themselves. But really, even that is not mine to make as rule. Another’s motivation is not mine to govern, not at all – be it either wise or foolish. What is mine to say, ours I mean, is my response – only that.
It is perhaps some hard to see clearly from the inside of a thing. Meaning here, sexual desire. Even in the realization it is yet some galling to accept. But it is in the very fabric of us physically to be attracted, to desire that intense motivation within our lives. A Darwinian failure to thrive otherwise. Considering our general preference for head-in-sand, I am reluctantly amused to think – would we seek physical sex at all were there not a compelling instruction within our flesh and thoughts? However to include those greater questions, who we are and what we are doing here, I have to wonder about being solely content just to play the happy little puppy dog. Nothing “wrong” with that, but is that all we aspire to be and realize of ourselves?
So if we are something more, then we are responsible for our responses to life, no matter the form or matter presented. Certainly I have my chemistry, my library of images planted or nurtured by me, no matter the source. But what I do, how I act upon the whole, including myself, that is where the adult in us is called upon to reply in good and nurturing measure I think.
Pardon, pardon please, as I am not comprehensively prepared. Most of my books are yet in boxes piled away. One book that applies if the title is right, “Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do”, about society interjecting itself between what any consenting adults choose to do – be it political, religious, cultural or sexual. One person – Carol Queen, sexologist and participant with the SF Bay Area business, Good Vibrations, “a clean well lighted place” for women to review and purchase sexual items of all sorts. Carol Queen’s range of study and participation within sexual understanding is uninhibited and refreshing to say the least. These resources are worth the look I think.
Perhaps we all objectify ourselves to some degree, that we are not responsible for our thoughts, our feelings, our attitudes and beliefs. When we accept and take responsibility for ourselves completely, then all these issues of doing damage to ourselves and others will simply not be. Time to observe, time to wake up. That would be nice. There are far more worthy things for us to attend.
And thank you Domino for your expression and willingness to look beyond the casual.
Hi Neil and thanks for sharing your thoughts. Your comments reminded me of an editorial I read today. I liked this quote:
How to Kill the Honour Killings ‘Cancer’ – The National Post
So many of the bizarre sexual pathologies and paranoia we have to contend with are perpetuated by the anachronism of religious belief.
We need to bring in an era of secularism and artistic renaissance to propel us out of these dark ages of fear and superstition.
Oh yes, and there’s that phrase, “obsessed with women’s sexuality”! Suppose if we simply invert much of what we hear, closer to the truth we’ll become. In conversation might that not read instead, “obsessed with men’s sexuality”? But then we might have to face ourselves more honestly. Heaven forbid! So much is said in how we frame a question, isn’t it?
Because we eat our own spirit, we think we’re gods.
The only law is Nature.
Man’s attempts to usurp it results in perversity and denial.