Some feminists today are strongly opposed to the Sex-Positive Feminism movement, sharing my concern that the sexual objectification of women, especially by women themselves, has been detrimental to the well-being of women, men, and the institution of marriage in our society. In this view, raunch culture and proud proclamations of sluthood are symptoms of sexual mores that have spun out of control since the 1970s. Caroline Heldman and Lisa Wade (of Sociological Images) are two prominent feminist scholars who subscribe to this belief.
The “sex wars” of the 1980s pitted radical feminists, who claimed that female sexual objectification is dehumanizing, against feminists concerned about legal and social efforts to control and repress female sexuality. Over a decade of research now shows that radical feminists were right to be highly concerned.
Caroline Heldman, PhD
Heldman explains:
Today women’s sexual objectification is celebrated as a form of female empowerment. This has enabled a new era of sexual objectification, characterized by greater exposure to advertising in general, and increased sexual explicitness in advertising, magazines, television shows, movies, video games, music videos, television news, and “reality” television.
What is sexual objectification? If objectification is the process of representing or treating a person like an object (a non-thinking thing that can be used however one likes), then sexual objectification is the process of representing or treating a person like a sex object, one that serves another’s sexual pleasure.
Here are examples of sexual objectification in advertising:
The insidiousness of the problem has brought us to a place where even women not looking for casual sex may be mistaken for hookers based on their dress and makeup. Artifice and display are the guiding principles of female-male interaction, and while this is nothing new, we’ve upped the ante to a place where it’s hard to imagine what comes next. We’re already rutting in the streets.
All this is taking a significant toll on the female psyche, which in turn affects males. We’re raising girls to be sexually empowered, i.e. objectified, while simultaneously urging them to be professionally empowered as subjects, or actors.
Here is Heldman’s excellent TED talk, well worth 13 minutes of your time:
While most people will not feel spurred to activism, Heldman’s advice for women is sound:
1. Avoid the worst offenders in the media. Ditch Cosmo and all the other photoshopped rags.
2. Stop seeking attention for your body from strangers. Don’t compete with other women for male attention to your body. That validation is fleeting and, if anything, is inversely correlated to establishing a long-term relationship.
3. Practice viewing your body as a vehicle for moving through the world, its strength and all the things it enables you to experience other than as an object of male admiration.
4. Be in the moment during sex. No woman can have a great orgasm if she’s watching herself from above, wondering if her back is arched in such a way that her partner finds her beautiful. If you decide to have sex with a man, do it with abandon. It will be much, much better for both of you.
{ 1233 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 3 … 9 »
It raises the interesting question of what is the motive behind raunch culture and sexual objectification of women? The male motive of those apex males who can get more casual sex is probably part of it, but what is the female motive? No doubt females are more free to participate in it if they want due to birth control and not needing a provider male in their life. It seems like the vast majority of the female pop stars sell raunchiness and short-term mating lifestyles to at least some degree. But the question is why? And why is it so successful? Why are women who may not become very slutty supporting such “entertainment” with their purchases?
Is it fulfilling some psychological need for the female consumers of such products, allowing them to vicariously live out desires that they don’t want to act upon (as much) in real life? (In a similar way that sports may allow the cubicle-shackled man to vicariously let out his inner warrior and need for competition?)
Where does objectification end and normal desire begin?
As a child of the 80′s, I learned all forms of male desire that relate to appearance are objectification. “She’s pretty” = objectification = try to be friends first and let her determine desire = LJBF. Lots of feminists, ambient and explicit, like to use this false objectification as means to collar men, while, annoyingly, reserving the right to be just as objectifying themselves. But women can’t objectify men… as witnessed by the nine thousand posts of “Magic Mike” and various beefcake in my Facebook newsfee, from bored soccer moms compared to the precisely zero sexy images posted by men.
Objectification does exist, I believe, but the bar is much higher than people believe, and women are not the sole recipient of it. That’s my main beef.
@HanSolo
The Sexual Revolution had unleashed sexuality and the Feminist script was that women could own their sexuality and be empowered by it. After the debate in the 1980s between feminist factions, the sex-pozzies won and the notion of empowerment infiltrated the culture fully. Overt sexual behavior was encouraged and rewarded with respectful attention (from feminist women and some men). This courtesy was even extended to porn actresses and prostitutes.
With sexual constraints on women removed, the media and then industry rushed in to fill the void, and incidence of sexual objectification in ads increased tenfold. Magazines for women that were relatively tame in the 70s, e.g. Cosmo, Glamour, became increasingly sexualized. We began to sexualize girl children at younger and younger ages – Abercrombie and Fitch actually produced a child bikini with foam padding in the top to create the appearance of breasts. When shopping for a baby shower last year, I noted that many of the outfits for girl infants included halter tops and belly baring features. And of course we’re all aware of the various scandals that have come to the attention of the media, e.g. child dancers gyrating to Beyonce’s All the Single Ladies.
So the motives were both political and financial. Though it should be said that the Sexual Revolution was partly ushered in by the release of the Pill, a technological development.
Most women will not actively seek a role on Girls Gone Wild. But all girls in the U.S. are subjected to popular culture, which is rife with sexual objectification. It’s so ingrained we hardly noticed it much of the time. TV, movies, ads, music videos, video games – it’s deeply embedded in all media.
@OTC
I don’t think Heldman is saying that women do not want to be attractive to men. Or that they shouldn’t be. She specifically states that her objection is to women being reduced to the role of object – passive, to be acted upon – rather than subject – active, decisive.
Nor does she deny the role of feminism in this trend – in fact, she explicitly assigns responsibility there.
In her talk she states that while both sexes can be objectified, research shows that of all objectified images in the media, 96% are of women.
Bottom line, this is not a gender war issue. This is women objectifying themselves and other women. Heldman is not blaming men, and while some other feminists might, that is not the subject of this post or debate.
Pretty sure all feminists are opposed to the objectification of women. They just don’t think that women should be blamed for the objectification. Love the porn actress, hate the porn.
” Why are women who may not become very slutty supporting such “entertainment” with their purchases?”
Its a good question, and perhaps the answer is not as simple as people like seeing it, but if being bombarded with such images, even good people will get “used to it” after awhile. That applies to everything too. I remember several protests from other advertisements that were eventually banned, Spelman College protests of explicit and sexually degrading rap videos, people were protesting that film Deep Throat even though it came out at sexual liberation era etc., People may be alarmed by taxes being raised for example, and dislike it, but they settle into it after being exposed to it for long periods of time in the form of gradual increase.
I don’t think anyone likes pervasive violence at first either. Most people don’t want their children exposed to it; most people are NOT violent and don’t really care for films with soldiers getting their heads chopped up/blown up, but we normalize anything we’re exposed to enough. I actually can get physically ill at too much violence and death on t.v. yet True Lies is one of my all time favs, as well as several other action films, because I’ve gotten more used to seeing that level of violence now.
You know it just occurred to me that some of our readers have lived through the “feminist sex wars”. Does anyone have any war stories?
Are you saying that a porn actress is not objectifying herself?
Toll on female psyche? Please. You (they) cannot blame the media. Most of the womens’ magazines are run by women. This statement is so true…”Today women’s sexual objectification is celebrated as a form of female empowerment.” Women eat this up all day long. There is no issue on psyche.
Women willfully take classes on stripper polls. College girls dress like sluts & hookers for parties. No one makes these women who want equality in pay, work, life etc. film themselves having sex or posting “selfies” all over the web. Do a Google Images unfiltered search for “Self Pics” and tell me how many women post pictures that they took of themselves in varying states or dress or undress.
Sure objectification exists. However, women are THE largest factor in perpetuating it. They want to be taken seriously, but they also want to own their sexuality; have hook-ups, sex without commitment etc. Heldman is a minority. Most women do not, will not take responsiblity for owning up to the fact that they are their own worst enemies.
You do get that the realities of female hypergamy couples with increasing female status (thus artificially lowering the pool of “acceptable” men) and their decreasing need to pay attention to long-term mate value in men are driving this, not “the media”.
http://www.csom.umn.edu/assets/71503.pdf
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12115-012-9596-y
I haven’t watched the video. My point was that the steady drumbeat of all physical attraction as being “objectification”, because men *must* approach and be active (or perish), diltues the actual claims of real objectification. To the point where my first reaction now is to think “bullshit” when I hear it.
So, that’s the rub – men are celibate unless we approach (active) a woman who prefers to be approached (passive), and thus it’s all objectification unless we, well, go in a corner and die.
When I think “objectified” I don’t think the recipient of an action, because everyone gives and receives. I think of object as a non-human thing, as in an inanimate object, like a brick or a doll, meaning, your value is solely reduced to your body and your mind doesn’t matter; or you’re reduced entirely to your wallet and your desires don’t matter. It’s extracting one slice out of human, only seeing and only using that. But I’m no Women’s Studies major, so that’s how I see it.
Tangent time…
To my amusement, I’ve found parroting feminist language back in polite company funny, and rarely challenged. A friend of mine (40+, obese) posted “happiness is dancing in closed position with a really ripped man”, so I called her creepy and objectifying young innocent men. She constantly posts how, when she loses weight, she will have a torrid affair with a man much too young for her, and nobody says a disapproving word. As a mental exercise, imagine your 50-year old unemployed, balding, bachelor uncle saying the same thing in public, kids.
I don’t think that this can be discussed really without dissing male attraction vectors, Susan. I know that this was not your intention, or the intention of herself in the OP, but I don’t think that the threads so neatly separate. Men are visually attracted to an object of their attraction. Period. Do we mate select on that basis? No, we don’t — not solely, of course not. But we are attracted that way. The male gaze exists — it’s wired into us as men.
The discussion then becomes: what should women do about this — pander to it, or resist it. That was really the debate in the 198os. The panderers won, not because they had the better case, but because the entire woop and warf, the entire trend and internal logic of feminism was one of liberation from restrictions. To follow that with a new set of restrictions seemed — and was — incongruous when viewed against that backdrop. So the sex-pozzies won — it was logical that they did. The contra perspective was that women should be liberated so that they could restrict themselves — kind of incongruous, particularly for that small segment of women who signs up to be strippers, porn stars and hookers (not the drug-addled, involuntary kind, but the grad student looking for money kind).
But it can’t really be discussed apart from an understanding that this is what attracts men. The panderers know that, and they want to pander. It may be self-defeating, and it may also be fleeting for most, but they do know what they are pandering to. The other side also realizes the same thing, but wants to tame it, to somehow get away from what attracts men, in an effort to force men to be attracted by other things — that may not be what the woman in the OP wants, but it is what the anti-sex-pos feminists in the 1980s wanted, for sure. They hated male desire. And that is the other big reason why they lost: most women don’t hate male desire.
The issue, of course, is finding a happy medium where women accept what attracts men without making backhanded comments about it (which still happens a lot today, and is particularly rich when coming from the mouth of a woman who is obviously pandering to what attracts men) but not slide all the way down the slope. In other words, woman are naturally going to want male validation for their bodies (and, yes, also, and perhaps even more so, from stranger men, provided this is given in an acceptable way) — telling them not to want that is like telling them to go die in a fire. It’s not going to happen on a broad scale, and yet again that is a big reason why the anti-sex-pos part lost: they were proposing an approach to men that women didn’t want. The question is — given that you want some male validation for your physical attractiveness to men, how far do you go to compete for that with other women (and today we all see that it goes very far), and how do you balance it with other things in your life so that you don’t come across as a slut, or even become one (if you do not want to be one). It’s more of a balancing act, rather than telling women that they ought not to care much about seeking validation from men in general for their physical attractiveness.
I really enjoyed Ariel Levy’s book on this topic called Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture about women’s and feminism’s role in this.
As the mother of a fourteen-year-old daughter, I am rather obsessed about this topic . . ..
Men and women are fundamentally different. Their sexuality is fundamentally different, and thus their roles are necessarily different. A woman can play out a man’s sexual role, but doing so will inevitably result in unintended and unpleasant consequences. Any attempt to deny reality is doomed to fail eventually.
And Brendan is correct.
Brendan February 21, 2013 at 3:38 pm
The male gaze exists — it’s wired into us as men.
The discussion then becomes: what should women do about this — pander to it, or resist it.
————————-
I say don’t pander nor resist. Just accept it, because it’s not going to change regardless of socialization or laws.
I really like that TED talk, pretty well done. However I see that most commenters so far just bypassed the real topic of the post and went on inane tangent again.
Since moving to the US, I have observed that advertizement just reduces women to some ridiculous stereotypes most of the time; when they’re not dancing because the laundry is perfectly clean (that one got me nauseous) or matching their sweaters/blouses to their vaccums/brooms, (SWEEFER jet I’m looking at you!), it is some other tampon/yogourt BS. This is why I cringe when I hear all these men crying over their rights and status lowered.
Tell me one thing: no matter how “miserable” men supposedly are in the US in regard of gender rights, why is advertizing not adapting to those realities? The only guy cleaning in Ads is Mr Clean and he is a cartoon. On the other hand, even with their supposed higher status they enjoy, women are still being depicted as passive objects of pleasures.
Clearly, media as espoused the objectification scheme, taking in consideration only short term financial gain, to the detriment of the damage it does even in the most innocuous ads. I’m always amazed when I see one of those ads make it to television or magazines, wondering if the test panels were composed of blind sexual addicts.
I think people and men in particular should listen to what is being said in that talk. We all know men are visual creatures, and straight men like women. This has nothing to do with women trying to redefine what men find attractive or not. It is about men realizing that they can make choices according to the quality a product has in itself except the naked lady spread near it. And it is also about men realizing they can appreciate a woman (or other people) for who they are and not just the external stuff.
Women who like men have to compete against those images that are more and more sexual and extreme to the extent that even sheep has to dress as wolves. When men refuse to respond so positively to and value these extreme images, I think women will definitely go back to a more restricted way of behaving that will allow them to engage in activities that are more gratifying to their self-esteem.
“It raises the interesting question of what is the motive behind raunch culture and sexual objectification of women? The male motive of those apex males who can get more casual sex is probably part of it, but what is the female motive?”
Bah, female motive? not relevant(! I know! I was shocked when I worked it out too!)
feminism demands that men and women are the same, blank slate, tabula rasa, nurture over nature ad nauseum (blech). Otherwise how can they blame any difference on teh patriarchy?
no, no, no (you Y gened oppressor you)
clearly men and women are the same, so women’s sexuality (once teh patriarchy is removed) must be the same as men – unconditional sex etc etc (to be fair, this may actually be true for some of the militant feminists – and they don’t actually care about anyone else; male or female)
This evil research, which says women can feel okay about not shagging like men, clearly is a work of the patriarchy! and rape culture (probably)
Ladies, as Tante Susan often recommends, listen to your own instincts; ..Hook Up Smart!
(mostly in fun, apart from the serious bits)
I appreciate the sentiment that Susan and the commenters are putting out there. But one thing in that video bothers me. It’s essentially a feminist tract. It can’t solve the problem that feminism created, so it misidentifies the problem (and it follows that the real debate between factions was all about that mis-identification).
The problem really isn’t about advertising or body parts or body image or male chauvinism or anything else that’s been assigned blame.Those things will always be there and always have been.
It’s about a lack of moderation.There’s been a glut of attention whoring, a glut of advertising (“…but I repeat myself”, a la Mark Twain) a glut of competition between everybody and pandering to the lowest level.It makes you want to shout “Just cool it!” to everyone.
The problem is that no one is allow to feel like they don’t have to compete for anything. At least, not enough.
“On the other hand, even with their supposed higher status they enjoy, women are still being depicted as passive objects of pleasures. ”
yeah, women are vain, bubble headed sex objects whose greatest issues are whether their hair is the right shade of the latest hue, their heels are high enough and whether their under arm skin is man repellingly less than soft (scream!), but men are dull lummoxes that are sex obsessed and need sensible, adult women to guide them with their wisdom…like trucks men drive better under load, work the little jackasses till they drop, why don’t cha? if they complain just tell them to man up.
advertising (and so modern society) sucks for both genders.
I don’t watch much TV, but caught the Sunday morning ‘news’ a few days ago; what drivel! sport this, fashion that, anything but address the impending financial catastrophuck.
Clearly we are all sheeple…baaa-aaah!
Along these lines, I’ve recently started seeing pole dancing classes offered in my area… as like an alternative to kickboxing, or spinning, or yoga. And I know a couple of women (educated, professional, feminist) who have taken them. I don’t get it.
” I don’t get it.”
maybe if you learned game?
Mireille –
Almost ALL product advertising in the United States is directed towards women and not men because in the US, women account for something like 70% of all consumer spending for households, whether single or married. That’s right — they are the target market. If you’re angry at what you see in American advertising, realize that unless it’s an ad for a specifically male product (razor blades, viagra, beer, sports) it’s aimed primarily at women and not at men. Similarly, it’s almost all women (and gay men) who are the consumers of the fashion magazines and publications like C0smo, not men. But yet you come in here, guns blazing at men — typical nonsense. Typical.
And then you contradict yourself in one paragraph when you state that:
We all know men are visual creatures, and straight men like women. This has nothing to do with women trying to redefine what men find attractive or not.
Only to say, a mere two sentences later:
And it is also about men realizing they can appreciate a woman (or other people) for who they are and not just the external stuff.
What the hell? Do you really think that men do not appreciate ANYTHING about women other than their appearance? Do you really? Is that your experience with men in the US and otherwise? I see men and women working with each other as colleagues all the time, whether they are attracted to each other or not — seems like plenty of men and women can see things in each other even if they are not attracted. Nevertheless, if there is attraction at all, for men at least attraction happens *first*, before the rest comes into play, and attraction for men is largely visual. It’s not like that for most women, but it is for most men. Wanting us to be more like women in that regard precisely *is* trying to change what men are attracted to, and it’s fruitless.
Susan is quite right that this is not inherently a gender war issue in that it is essentially about how women themselves want to pander to the male gaze or not, and to what degree. It does involve the male gaze as the backdrop, to be sure, but it’s really about what women do, knowing about the male gaze, than it is about anything else. This isn’t about men victimizing women by buying products peddled by women, because women buy most consumer products and most ads (and almost all TV programming other than live sports) is aimed at women as well for the same reason. It’s about what women do about wanting to be attractive without pandering too much — a conundrum to be sure, but one that lies at the feet of the *women* in the picture — not the men.
decidedly on topic (for the site)
http://www.stateofourunions.org/2012/SOOU2012.pdf
an excerpt;
I realise that this is an UMC site, but this is your tomorrow
@Brendan
‘Buy more, get more’ – Axe / Lynx deoderant for men
everything that you say is true, but even beyond that; is it really so much better for men?
This (old) article was laser designated from nearly a year ago
http://theredpillroom.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/it-was-on-sale-myth-of-vagina-tax.html
damn! I just contradicted myself – it’s official, women are the bigger suckers (but we men are trying ever harder as we are (intended to be) feminised by society).
oh well, there is the ameliorating factor that it’s funny too…
@Susan
Thanks for the description of what happened. Can you address the reasons of why alpha female pop/movie stars create the raunch and why women are consuming it?
Obviously men are creating the demand for porn so some women go into it for the money and fame.
But what is up with the Beyonce-type level of things that isn’t pornographic but is promoting somewhat-slutty dress and behavior? Why are women buying her music and message? Demand can be created to some extent simply by having the alpha females (and I suppose alpha males) “declare” that something is now the in-style way to act or be or thing to buy, but what started the ball rolling and what keeps it rolling? Was it alpha males wanting more promiscuous women and the aspiring alpha females (more the pop-culture type) responded to try and get those men or to at least make a lot of money by being a symbol of the type of woman that those alpha males want? And then the beta females follow along to some extent and buy the products (and even live a little vicariously through those sluttier women, imagining or feeling the power of being a sex symbol) even though those beta females don’t fully embrace the raunch?
Your thoughts on the why of this would be appreciated. Thanks.
I think I said that very clearly in the post. That’s really what Heldman’s point is. She’s not blaming men. Why is that the knee jerk male response?
NAWALT
In fact, MWANLT
So… PJ is back? :-p
“Why is that the knee jerk male response?”
not this male’s knee
this male says that when men and women are in the same ad, the man is more than likely portrayed as a poltroon.
this male suspects that men do actually have it slightly worse:
female : is your under arm skin repulsive to men and making them puke rather than abse themselves before what could be (buy our product) your goddess like body (buy our product)
men : you would have to beat women away with a shitty stick if you bought our product + you are so unworthy and dumb compared to wise women (ignore us marketing to them as if they were imbeciles) you imbecile
@Susan
??? Yes she is. As soon as she starts taking off her make-up, she’s almost shouting “You’re not doing this for you. You’re doing this for teh menz!”
Not in words, of course. But that’s the sub-text as soon as her vocabulary distinguishes her as a feminist. The knee jerk response is because *that* is what “teh menz” are hearing her say.
And she’s not saying “…so blame the men!” and more than men are saying “You are no more than an object, here to satisfy my lust.” It just comes off that way.
@Brian
I guess you’re new here. I can recite those papers you linked to in my sleep. A couple of quibbles.
Increasing female status does not artificially lower the pool of acceptable men. It’s for real.
Women still benefit from paying attention to LTR value. The ones who don’t will not achieve sustainable LTRs. The market basically regulates itself.
The media does indeed play an extremely important role in shaping culture. Hypergamy is present in all women, but it was unleashed by culture. Today our culture is characterized by sexual objectification, including women objectifying themselves.
@Iggles
oh no no no
Susan, I checked out the “Rules Revisited” site linked to on your sidebar and I do think he also some advice that could be helpful for women– um, that guy is a cad.
Eg in this post he talks about how he makes a habit of sleeping with women and then never contacting them again. Classy.
http://www.therulesrevisited.com/2011/08/dealing-with-breakup-or-rejection.html
@OTC
WADR, if you had watched the video, you would see why this comment is irrelevant, as it specifically addresses and highlights real objectification, which has nothing to do with attractiveness.
I can’t force anyone to watch the video, but neither should we have to listen to rants that are off topic.
Heldman explains exactly what she means in the video.
@Whitney
Welcome, that is exactly how I came to read Levy’s book! My daughter was 16 at the time, but my obsession with the topic is what led me to start this blog, so be careful!
@Iggles
the name is actually a clue, as is the image. if you find ‘soup dragon’ as well…mystery solved (probably)
“the name is actually a clue, as is the image”
Between the name Major, and the pick of the mouse – you’be reminded me of Full Metal Jacket.
*marching cadence* M.I.C… K.E.Y… M.O.U.S.E..
@Iggles
“Resembling small pink anteaters, the adorable knitted Clangers–who live in underground caves on a blue moon far away in space–have transfixed television audiences around the world since 1969. This fantastic new book explains how to knit your own Clanger, as well as such friendly characters as the Soup Dragon, Iron Chicken, and the Froglets–even your own Clanger planet!”
ignoramuses!
ignoramii!(?)
Clangers (Major Clanger being the patriarch) live on the terran moon. despite what the amateurish wikipoodia says.
audio clips exist
Watched the TED talk– I liked it. On a related topic, I found this talk by model Cameron Russel interesting:
http://www.ted.com/talks/cameron_russell_looks_aren_t_everything_believe_me_i_m_a_model.html
A lot of it wasn’t really new or groundbreaking… pretty white women have privilege yadda yadda… but what struck me was when she said, “I’m insecure.” If you see a picture of her you can see why that’s striking … but she says that models are some of the most insecure women out there… because they see themselves as objects, and are required by their profession to be obsessed with their appearance.
Brendan: Right. Advertisers, and they tell their clients, they sweat bullets and spend huge sums on trying to see what the market likes. Suppose they’re right. The market–women potential consumers–like this stuff. Or the advertisers are wrong. In which case they’d be getting objections from women by the truckload.
So look at women for the answer.
Used to work with a youth group at church. Had a mantra:’
Aubrey. “What is the purpose of Seventeen Magazine?”
Young woman–correct answer” To make the reader feel inadequate so they buy the advertisers’ stuff.”
I do the best I can where I am. Shucks.
One release for hypergamy is the ease of travel and relocation. If a person’s potential spouse was limited to whomever was within ten miles, there were only so many studly young baron’s sons–who would be limited by convetion to barons’ daughters and could only impregnate just for fun the local peasantry. I’ve heard it said that, in the old days, the upper classes looked better–even not considering nutrition pre and post natal and brute labor and miserable living conditions–due to selection. A particularly good looking peasant girl might end up working at the castle and bearing the baron’s bastards, or his son’s bastards. Who probably would not be thrown out, but over a couple of generations their genes would be integrated into that level of society. Nice theory. Not sure if it’s provable.
@ Brendan,
I see that you picked the bits you had a problem with in my post and went to town with it to call me typical. Let me laugh! How TYPICAL is that? If you read my last paragraph, you’ll get my point. I’m not chastizing men for what they like, I’m questioning what advertisers do and communicate to people, men and women alike. It’s bad mojo all around. Men like cars because they’re fast and powerful and its exciting to control such a machine, not because some seemingly slutty blonde is on the ad; ergo ditch the blonde and show me some high speed chase in a BMW. If you didn’t get my point, I can’t do anything for you.
“But what is up with the Beyonce-type level of things that isn’t pornographic but is promoting somewhat-slutty dress and behavior? Why are women buying her music and message? Demand can be created to some extent simply by having the alpha females (and I suppose alpha males) “declare” that something is now the in-style way to act or be or thing to buy, but what started the ball rolling and what keeps it rolling? Was it alpha males wanting more promiscuous women and the aspiring alpha females (more the pop-culture type) responded to try and get those men or to at least make a lot of money by being a symbol of the type of woman that those alpha males want? And then the beta females follow along to some extent and buy the products (and even live a little vicariously through those sluttier women, imagining or feeling the power of being a sex symbol) even though those beta females don’t fully embrace the raunch?”
@Hansolo,
Can I just object to something here? As a black woman I object to stigmatizing Beyonce in particular for the “rise of the raunch”. I’d say aside from her sexy outfits and energetic dance moves, she NEVER sings about having sex with anyone. Just like the “good’ole conservatives”, she dresses the part of the business but act/speak very differently. To the extent that she even spoke herself of having another persona “Sasha Fierce”, that woman that takes over the stage when she performs.
I believe Madonna in the 80s spoke, looked and acted the part of the liberated woman she supposedly represented, singing about actual sex and stuff. Followed the long list of similar fake blonde bimbos ( Britney, Christina, Jessica, Gaga, etc…) and the Katy Perries of the world. This is a clear example of sexual objectification where you have to change your appearance to match the demand and up the sex jib jab in your music. Of course, now you have a fierce competition to look even more manufactured and lascivious in order to sell more so the bimbofication and raunchiness has become a classic business plan for any starlet, even the very musically gifted ones like Gaga, Beyonce and Perry. Tragic.
@Susan
“In fact, MWANLT”
You’ll have a hard time convincing men of this.
I’ve done an experiment over the past two weeks.
Back in Canada I specifically counted the number of women wearing slutty vs. non-slutty clothing. (Say 3-7 ratio)
In Seoul now, in comparison to Canada, nothing is slutty but going off the sluttiest clothing its maybe 4-6 ratio. (Which constitutes leggings, skirt and heels, so not slutty).
The male gaze tends to focus on things that would constitute an easy lay (evolutionary adaptation) which can lead to men to only focusing on the slutty women.
I know in both places I have and do do it without conscious effort in the reverse.
————————————-
Also, as touched on above (by you as well).
Slutty is based upon local competition, whether that be the girl next door or the girl on TV and the male gaze is capable of adapting very quickly.
Note: The slutty Korean dress style described above doesn’t give me the easy last feel just easier. So not slutty but hella sexy.
Last, an interesting comparison to make would be unrestricted vs. someone like Cooper.
I wonder if he notices different clothing styles than I do?
Watching some of the video. I disagree that men seeing sexualized women everywhere makes them feel like sexual subjects. No! The exact opposite. To the extent that men even notice them, it may create some arousal, it also will some men realize they can’t get those kind of women and feel impotent in the face of such out-of-reach desire.
@Lokland
What, you think restricts guys are detached from evolutionary adaptations?
I’m fairly sure my head twirls to the same things.
Now what I approach, strategically, may be different than what makes my head spin the quickest.
Mireille –
Your last paragraph was focused on men, and men’s responsibility for women’s behavior, to wit:
Women who like men have to compete against those images that are more and more sexual and extreme to the extent that even sheep has to dress as wolves. When men refuse to respond so positively to and value these extreme images, I think women will definitely go back to a more restricted way of behaving that will allow them to engage in activities that are more gratifying to their self-esteem.
Clearly saying :if men were to do X, women would do Y — the flip of that is “women are doing X because men are doing Y”. You are blaming men for women’s behavior, which is exactly what I called you on. And by referring to your last paragraph, you only home in on the same issue — you obviously don’t get it.
Men like cars because they’re fast and powerful and its exciting to control such a machine, not because some seemingly slutty blonde is on the ad; ergo ditch the blonde and show me some high speed chase in a BMW.
They do, but in fact the advertising folks say that ~65% of new car buying decisions are made by women, and I frankly see plenty of women buying BMWs. The ads are not directed at men, can you understand that? Can you? If you can’t, you’re simply arguing disingenuously. It’s not about “what men are reacting to, and women are thereby behaving accordingly” — the ads are marketing directly to WOMEN who are making the buying decisions. The question for you is why are women reacting to the ads in this way — not men, because the ads aren’t directed at men. That ended 15-20 years ago now.
Her claim that sex doesn’t sell because men aren’t frequently shown shirtless (or as frequently as women) doesn’t make any sense. Women aren’t as visually driven as men and I think that showing the hot women is often geared more towards marketing towards the women by making them feel inferior and that they have to buy that product to achieve that image.
So, yes, women do self-objectify and compete. Her insight on women seems good but her thoughts on how men factor in seems off-base.
Since, I’m not exactly chasing Ms.F any more, I’m going to retire the Jedi-hamster for the time being…
I haven’t decided what my avatar will be yet, but I uploaded a pic from Uni.
“But what is up with the Beyonce-type level of things that isn’t pornographic but is promoting somewhat-slutty dress and behavior? Why are women buying her music and message? ”
Wait, Beyoncé is slutty? Maybe she just has a so-called “slutty” body? Other than that, she dresses like a country western singer I thought. She’ll wear bodysuits to performances, but her family/publicists seem to do a good job of overemphasizing her sweet country girl demeanor and Christian values http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VP5TMJ2r-o. Perhaps her being “slutty” is a result of predisposed connotations based on who her looks represent, and not her wardrobe. I see her as dressing kind of sexy sure, like Shania Twain or Shakira. But I don’t really put either of them in the slutty category. Is it the consensus that she’s slutty?
People tend to buy whomever the radio promotes the most. Sometimes people think they prefer Downy drier sheets, but only because they’re not exposed as much to the better alternative, and because Downy is the only name they see. Not that that excuses it, of course, but perspective is important.
@Cooper
“Now what I approach, strategically, may be different than what makes my head spin the quickest.”
I don’t doubt it.
For me the girl in t-shirt and jeans is literally below my level of notice unless I specifically look for her.
It’s often said that women control the SMP, so what’s up with blaming men for slutty fashions? looks more like intra-sexual competition than inter. Can’t you women organise a union meeting and so stop wearing 6inch heels, false eyelashes and being size 0? It cannot be comfortable to teeter around like that and spend hours on makeup…but you do. and men aren’t making you do it, we love you wearing our old shirts with bed hair (as long as we did it).
What’s the point of the herd if you can’t organise a work-to-rule?
The male motive of those apex males who can get more casual sex is probably part of it, but what is the female motive?
In part, it’s to get male interest. There is also the notion that if men can enjoy being promiscuous, then women should find it enjoyable too and are therefore as entitled to it as men. In fact, I think it is more like when cats do something graceless. We used to have a cat. As she aged, she got clumsy, but when she did something clumsy, she’d scramble to maintain her dignity and act as if she really intended to do it. I think a lot of the sex-pozzies get involved in casual sexual experiences expecting them to be good. When it turns out shitty, they’ll pretend it wasn’t. As in “Oh, he used me?” ” No, I used him too.” With enough pluralistic ignorance, it becomes a cultural feature.
How can you possibly say that she isn’t problematizing male attraction when she is calling for boys to be taught not to evaluate girls/women based on appearance and to speak out against objectification (which seemingly is also defined by that evaluation as much as it is by the advertising images she uses earlier in the talk)? That IS male attraction. We do evaluate girls that way. Asking us not to do that is pathologizing normal male attraction, and frankly it’s a message many of us received growing up in the 1980s. It was bad then and it’s not good now. Sorry, but it’s just garbage and misandry. Men will always evaluate women in that way. I see no evidence in my professional life that men cannot work with women who are evaluated negatively in that way — none at all. But to problematize the evaluation itself is simply problematizing male attraction. How can you possibly say she isn’t talking about male attraction when she clearly is? How could she not be? It’s rather obvious that she’s talking about male attraction. It’s the same bloody message from the contra-sex-pos camp that was floating around when I was growing up and has caused immeasurable damage in men by making many of them feel badly for being primarily visually attracted to women. It’s garbage.
@Brendan
if women have a problem, the men must have caused it – oppressors
I wish that I was even joking
@Brendan,
We’re talking past each other. I said men should stop RESPONDING positively to extreme pictures, not that they were making women do whatever. Men don’t force me to dress up a certain way, I decide this myself; however seeing men “respond” more to women dressed a certain way can present an incentive to dress similarly. This is what I said, not that I was blaming men for forcing women to behave a certain way. There are still some people who can decide for themselves. We can disagree, it’s ok because you can’t really convince a foreigner to see the way you see things. Just read people posts properly first thanks.
@ HanSolo,
I think she got it right actually because she demonstrated that the same ad formula while impacting both gender differently resulted in any case in more sales. Brilliant! It simply works on different psychologies. Everybody sees in the ad the new element that is either going to improve or upgrade your status, for men and women. As you mentioned, some men could feel left out of that ideal, but surely I will never look like Naomi Campbell either so it also fails on both side. They are some strong people oblivious to that type of advertizing, there are the target ones who are stuck in the chase, and then you have the ones who took themselves out of the game altogether. Depending on where we locate ourselves on that scale, we are more or less receptive to that type of ads.
Wait, Beyoncé is slutty?
Her costumes often are. Here’s a labia slip just waiting to happen:
http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2013/02/unflattering-beyonce-super-bowl-halftime-show-pictures-just-how-bad-are-they.html
Her posture in the top pic + that outfit is more than we need to see, IMO.
I don’t blame her. They (Christina, Rihanna, Brittany) all do it. I just don’t like it.
“A lot of it wasn’t really new or groundbreaking… pretty white women have privilege yadda yadda… but what struck me was when she said, “I’m insecure.”
Ugh. Completely misses the point PJ.
People see less valuable women as more confident (and wonder why), when the reality is that they never got privilege based on looks, and so they don’t have the relationship with their looks fading that other women might. You wouldn’t be “insecure” about falling from a pedestal if you were never on it. Beauty and youth as a source of power and admiration doesn’t exist for women who aren’t as valuable, and if I were a model, I’d be even more insecure than I already am.
It’s like the middle class being more nervous about safety of their finances than someone who’s been poor their whole lives, and hasn’t been exposed to security. So yes, having known models, they CAN be insecure, because everyone is afraid of losing their leg up, but less afraid when already at the bottom.
Probably really confusing analogy…don’t have time for edit.
“Her posture in the top pic + that outfit is more than we need to see, IMO.
I don’t blame her. They (Christina, Rihanna, Brittany) all do it. I just don’t like it.”
I hold to a different standard a bodysuit during a performance, idk. It’s like saying figure skating outfits are slutty because they’re miniskirts.
But you’re right. That outfit is atrocious and raunchy, bodysuit is OK. Opening legs, and pushed up boobs is not.
Thank you, Susan. I am pretty obsessed with your blog at the moment and reading it voraciously – thank you for your service!
@ Ion, good point.
@Mireille
I was using Beyonce in response to Susan’s comment, “e.g. child dancers gyrating to Beyonce’s All the Single Ladies” influencing somewhat-slutty behavior. I wasn’t blaming her solely or primarily for the rise of raunch, rather as one of the less blatant contributers that still feeds into the dynamic. Some of the women you mentioned are more blatant contributors.
Ion:
I agree with your point. But as Cameron says in her talk, it’s also about the fact that models face criticism absolutely all the time. People in the fashion industry don’t bother with ‘common decency’, they can pretty much tell you whatever they want.
Models are also told which category they fit into. Women always want what other women have. I know a girl who’s a fashion model (6″, size 0) with that typical look. She has symmetrical features and the straight fashion model body. In every photo on her facebook profile, she has a ‘serious’ face, sometimes with a half open mouth. Last photo I saw she has clearly plumped up her upper lip (it’s obvious and awful). She doesn’t have the “sexy girl” look and is obsessed with achieving it.
I saw a TED talk about happiness and he said there is little correlation between looks and happiness – you’re pretty much just as happy being a 3 or a 6 or a 9. The explanation was that people will get used to whatever they have pretty quickly. Some of the best looking women I know are the most insecure. You’ll also find that most of the women in a cosmetic surgery office are well above average. Perhaps it’s the idea of reaching ‘perfection’.
You don’t have to make a career of your looks to be insecure – although models are much more insecure than average, due to the criticism and focus they receive. And like Cameron, they are aware of the styling and airbrushing that goes on – they know they don’t look like that.
@Susan
Not new here, long time reader.
When I say “artificial” I mean nothing about men needs to have changed for them to suddenly be unacceptable. Should have put it in quotes.
The second paper I doubt you can recite in your sleep as it is very new.
Women compete for men when the market isn’t in their favor and compete even more on looks when sh0rt-term mating. This wasn’t reflected well in your commentary. Slutting it up is “rational” in some sense.
I don’t see it as more or less a moral issue than men representing their status.
I love your site, love your insight, and recommend you often, and you are knowledgeable about the EP stuff, but I think overly optimistic in assessing the male desire for LTRs or even the uncomplicated broad female desire for one.
@ Brendan
WOW, wow, wow, calm down!
I’m amazed at how different people hear different things while watching the same stuff. Inner narratives at works here. Heldmann didn’t ask men to change their attraction criteria for women. NO, NO, NO!!!!! She said that men shouldn’t endorse ads/product that degrade and objectify women. It is a basic human rights issue, not a gender war thing. Just like I get nauseous when I see men depicted as idiots in show like “everybody loves ray” or Family Guy ( those shows are messed up and dangerous), men should associate with positive images of women, not that “thing” hanging around a car, shoe or deodorant…
To sum it up, a man is not attracted to a car, he’s attracted to women. So what does the car has to do with the woman in that ad, and vice versa? It is that advertising is trying to confuse buyers into thinking that buying the car equals buying the woman. But women are human beings. So shoddy logic.
I hope you can understand that it has nothing to do with men liking clear skin on 22 years old (in a world of acne, lol), long blond hair, etc… and Heldmann wanting them to change that. She’s asking the question: Do you, as an independent able thinking person, need to have the picture of your supposed “ideal” woman/men plastered on everything you buy? That is what is sexual objectification!
Sue: “I can’t force anyone to watch the video, but neither should we have to listen to rants that are off topic.”
I don’t watch videos when at work, but I just got home.
You might note that I led with a specific question about what is objectification vs. isn’t, and attempted to address your article from what I could surmise from the words.
But I will watch it, and I will admit that I now have a very serious knee-jerk reaction to claims of “objectification” now due to the abuse of it. Like my housemate who falsely claimed rape after bragging about it – it’s hard to take *any* of it seriously now, even if it does exist, and that’s sad. Call it feminism fatigue.
That’s all I really meant, not to disagree with what she said.
Heldmann didn’t ask men to change their attraction criteria for women. NO, NO, NO!!!!!
Nonsense.
There is a slide in her talk about “personal action” — she is talking personally, not about buying goods! She specifically says that boys should be encouraged not to evaluate women based on their appearance (the slide says exactly this) and then she explains that they should evaluate them based on “who they are, what they do” and so on. This is not about buying goods based on ads — it just is not. You’re spinning it that way, but that isn’t what she is talking about, and trying to make it about “personal narratives” makes you look foolish, to be honest. That was a blatant attack on male attraction vectors — a direct attack. And it’s misandrist.
Watch the video beginning at 10:09. She’s not talking about refraining from buying stuff based on objectifying ads. Not in the least.
Brendan,
She indeed said that men shouldn’t evaluate women on the basis of their appearance when it comes to what they can do ie their intellectual abilities, not regarding attraction. She even tells women about what they could do as a force if they spent less time trying to catch with beauty ideals instead of focusing most efforts on our appearance.
She talks to both groups to stop objectifying women. She didn’t say men need to not take into account women’s looks when they pick a partner, very far from her postulate. Basically, it comes down to this: if you’re picking a wife, have at it, measure/screen/ gauge on a scale of 1 to 10 all you want; when picking a car do the same FOR THE CAR and refuse ads that are using female images in order to confuse you about your purchase and degrade women in passing in the name of profit. BMWs are already great, they don’t need some slutty blonde to sell.
@Brendan
Your comment is a very interesting one, I think this is going to be a good discussion.
First, I agree 100% that the male gaze is important to women and always will be. We will not stop competing for it, and neither Heldman nor any other feminist can really believe that straight women will voluntarily stop seeking that male validation. I would point out a couple of things, though. First, male attraction vectors are malleable. What it takes to get a man aroused today is considerably more extreme than what it took in 1900. We are all somewhat numbed today by the extreme display of female sexuality and aggression. Porn, i.e., technology also plays a large role. IMO, we’re going to have to have some sort of reset to the SMP – it’s inevitable. There are three ways this can happen, as I see it:
1. Men stop rewarding slutty women with validation.
2. Women voluntarily tone it down and stop objectifying themselves to the extreme degree they do today.
3. Some external force causes a swift and dramatic restriction of sexuality, e.g. an epidemic.
4. Some mix of the above.
Men will not stop rewarding promiscuous display, nor should we expect them to.
I’m clearly invested in option #2, and feel that this is already taking place to some degree, though admittedly the feedback I receive is very biased – I hear from women doing just this because of the blog. However, the ranks of invol spinsters will swell over the next generation if current patterns continue – there will be many women wondering why they never found a partner, and not all of them will be carousel riders.
#3 is the wild card – always a possibility.
In short, most women want male desire, love male desire, and are willing to shave their legs to inspire it. They are not motivated by the arguments of Susan Brownmiller or heaven forbid Andrea Dworkin. The only argument that resonates with women today is one that demonstrates the incentives to not acting (or dressing) slutty – most notably the ability to attract a worthy long-term mate.
Many young women complain to me of receiving the “wrong kind of attention” from men – and my go-to approach is always to question the way in which they are presenting themselves. Middle and high schools are full of virgins who buy the same low cut jeans as everyone else. It’s no longer easy to tell who’s promiscuous and who isn’t – fashion trends are universal and somewhat ruthless.
Major Clanger are you Just1Z? You’re as bad as Plain Jane!
@Joe
I couldn’t agree more – is there any way we can battle this?
Re Heldman’s position, I don’t see the world through the same lens as she does – did you notice I did not endorse her advice to men? I believe it is women’s responsibility to get this right. But I think she’s 100% correct about the way girls are growing up in the culture. I saw it with my own daughter – I had to be aware and ready to do battle against the likes of Sex and the City. We had fights in clothing stores as I vetoed any jeans with short zippers, i.e. very low cut. We discussed the practice of grinding at middle school dances at some length. I felt like Mama Dragon Slayer just staying one step ahead of popular culture so that it wouldn’t ruin my girl.
A recent study showed that the most popular porn star women sleep with 8 men a year on average. Compared to some women who sleep with more or have slutty phases I say porn stars objectify themselves less, at least they’re getting compensated.
@Major Clanger
Thanks for linking to the 2012 SOOU!
Lots of good material there, and IMO they address some real issues that matter to men.
@Mireille
But my bigger point was why does it sell? It’s not just enough to say that that’s what you have to do to make it big. Why? Are men demanding it or women? Who buys most of these female artists’ work and attends their shows? Is it men or women?
She indeed said that men shouldn’t evaluate women on the basis of their appearance when it comes to what they can do ie their intellectual abilities, not regarding attraction.
That is not at all what she said at that point of the discussion — not in the least.
@Susan
As I read my own words again, I realized that, no, you can’t avoid the competition. It’s part of existence and part of life. Even domesticated animals (like my cat) has to compete sometimes (if only for my attention, because he wants to be fed).
The competition isn’t intrinsically fearsome or worrisome, you know. It’s the losing. The thought of losing all the time and every time is terrifying to teens and young adults, mostly because they can see the consequences.
So who usually teaches that losing isn’t fatal or forever, and that everyone wins sometimes? Not our schools, apparently. They’re busy showing kids that showing up is enough. It isn’t.
The job used to fall to dads. That’s a problem, isn’t it? Where are the dads now?
Your advice a couple of days ago was a call to choose your partner well. Can I amend that to add “… and stick with that person?” Sometimes you really do need to stay together for the sake of the kids, even if that isn’t very PC at the moment.
In short, most women want male desire, love male desire, and are willing to shave their legs to inspire it. They are not motivated by the arguments of Susan Brownmiller or heaven forbid Andrea Dworkin. The only argument that resonates with women today is one that demonstrates the incentives to not acting (or dressing) slutty – most notably the ability to attract a worthy long-term mate.
Many young women complain to me of receiving the “wrong kind of attention” from men – and my go-to approach is always to question the way in which they are presenting themselves.
I agree, Susan, very much.
Han Solo. As to who attends the female artists work, the question is difficult to answer. If a guy knows his gf likes that stuff, he may buy the tickets and go with her. A woman may suggest it. In any event, don’t know from looking at the spectators, or at who buys the tickets to know whose idea it is and who really wants to do it.
My guess is a woman would not want to go to a show where her bf would be ogling a female celeb whose act is projected on a giant screen or three. So it’s probably true that women are significant movers in seeing the female artists’ work, compared to guys doing it with gfs.
@Brendan in 12
Very insightful.
Anne
“The explanation was that people will get used to whatever they have pretty quickly.”
Totally.
“Some of the best looking women I know are the most insecure.”
They are aware of the attention they get from men in comparison to low value women. So they know they are good looking. Maybe it’s about the loss of privilege, and the male validation/resources that come with that that they’re accustomed to?
For example, I could do everything right, and I could never be 1/10th as valuable in treatment or appearance as someone who looks even remotely like Barbie. I got the media memo that I would never have as much worth as Barbie look alike, so I am not insecure about losing my Barbie looks. It doesn’t make me more confident, or “happier” with my looks. But if I looked even remotely similar to Barbie, it could possibly be a source of paranoia, maybe even an obsession, that I wouldn’t always look like myself, or that I could always look better. So insecure isn’t perhaps the best word for it.
“I saw a TED talk about happiness and he said there is little correlation between looks and happiness – you’re pretty much just as happy being a 3 or a 6 or a 9.”
I agree. Kind of like whether or not you make $50,000, $70,000, or $90,000, no more happiness would be reported. However if you’re living in poverty and unable to make rent, happiness drastically decreases, and it’s a source of stress. So once basic threshold is met for food, home and clothing, social inclusion, fair treatment, etc., being upper middle class does not mean you’re happier than someone middle class. However, if you’re making $90,000 a year, you’re more paranoid about losing everything than someone who was always poor and in and out of work. We’re all insecure about economic uncertainty. You’d just be more paranoid because for you, much more is at stake.
The fact that we’re more likely to entertain the insecurities of beautiful people (and not so much ugly people) proves their privilege. We’re also able to empathize with the humanity of someone with more or equal value, even when their struggles are more superficial. That being said, I do think it’s a shame how beautiful women are treated. There are plenty of women who are not beautiful who have more long term value than they do.
@HanSolo
I say follow the money trail. Look at the industries that prey on (and create) female insecurity: fashion, cosmetics, dermatology, plastic surgery. Media outlets court advertisers who benefit from convincing women they are not enough. Those same publications photoshop models to the point where their images are not the least bit realistic. As Heldman said, women begin to feel crappy within 3 minutes of looking at a fashion magazine. So why do they do it? Because it promises the answers to looking better, which will enable you to stop feeling crappy about yourself!
We’ve created an ideal that is not achievable – not even for the women modeling that ideal! We eagerly seek evidence of what people really look like – google Kim Kardashian before and after and you will be amazed.
Brendan’s right – this is all about the male gaze. And women are being told, and convinced, that men want perfect, long, lithe limbs with no imperfections, no stretch marks, zero cellulite. They want jutting hip bones and high cheekbones and thick, lustrous hair. Full lips, straight white teeth, no manjaws please.
Men regularly say here at HUS that they are not so picky – 80% of women pass the boner test. But this is not what women are raised to believe, nor do we see evidence of this. As my recent post on the relationship between attractiveness and promiscuity showed, underweight women do as well as beautiful women in attracting men. The culture has pervaded male attraction triggers, so women have every reason to be freaking out, as most will not measure up, despite what men may say.
@Hansolo,
Lol you know what, that is a good question. I can say for my part that I listen and possibly buy their music because all in all, they are great singers. The truth is you can dress them up in burlap or bikinis, their great voices will remain. Lady Gaga drama genius won’t go away because she’s wearing a burka. They’re talented, however their music houses in their race to profit push them to outdo each other, and if you can’t improve on your voice, which is already a marvel, then it becomes your body. I’m truly disturbed by it as well.
Several examples come to mind from my teenage years.
I remember how Christina and Britney used to sing those cute songs about high school love and trying to outdo each other with the trickiest dance videos. Cool times; however, Britney was winning. When Christina came out with “Dirrty”, the race to the “buttom” was on and Brit came out with “I’m a slave for you” and matching steamy video. I think this is where I stopped listening to any of them (Brit was basically moaning in all of her songs now for chrissakes!).
Then you have another tragedy; Mariah Carey and Katy Perry. Carey has opera training and used to showcase her voice when younger, but in today’s game, has to compete with equally talented women who parade semi naked and make bigger bucks so she sometimes wears stuff she shouldn’t being 10 years older and all that.
Bottom line, they’re great singers and people appreciate that and get used to the drama around the performance. Thank god indeed we’re still able to see talent in people instead of just their butts.
@Joe
That may be her intent, IDK, but what I hear is a lot of men who wish women would be more natural and less susceptible to believing what they read in fashion magazines. I was struck at the start of the talk by how heavily made up she was – it seemed an incongruous choice for a feminist scholar. I thought her natural beauty was far more evident after she ripped off the fake eyelashes and wiped away some of that glop.
I don’t think it’s about not giving men what they want. I think women have bought into a whole slew of beliefs that don’t reflect male desires at all. Many guys here have complained that women pay too much attention to fashion and cosmetics – industries led by women and gay males.
So I guess I’ll ask you – do you think that the fashion and cosmetic industries today are peddling a vision that accurately reflects what men find desirable in women?
@LJ
I don’t agree with everything Andrew says – for example, he has a post instructing women how to look their best during sex…facepalm. But overall I find him to be honest and insightful about the male psyche, and he provides a very valuable service to women in sharing that.
@Ion
Look at the 2nd and 3rd pictures of Beyonce here:
http://noisey.vice.com/blog/beyoncwatch-2013-the-highlights-of-beyonces-gq-interview-new-destinys-child
Those would classify as somewhat slutty in my mind. No, not outright slutty but they are sexy and provocatively-dressed images.
So, I was saying she is promoting somewhat-slutty dress and behavior. I also was calling it the Beyonce-like level, not intending to solely focus on her.
It is interesting if no one will admit that she dresses somewhat provocatively at times. Perhaps the bar has been lowered so much. I’m not coming at this as a moral prude either. Just trying to explain things and I was giving her level of things as the mild side. Other pop stars dress more provocatively, of course.
@LJ
I thought it was interesting that Cameron Russell encouraged people to “do something you can be proud of.” It’s clear she is ambivalent about her career, and that it is not worthy of her intelligence.
You know, I’ve been wondering about this myself. I’ll take a stab at this.
It seems like to me that feminists support a certain type of “objectification” or rather a certain form of “sexual empowerment” (because I highly doubt that they call it objectification)
In the examples you choose Susan, most of the women do appear as simply objects. In one example, one woman even appears as a dead body (which is actually a problematic trend that I’ve noticed in the fashion/modeling world).
On the other hand, covers and photoshoots that feature barely-clothed women, especially actresses and singers, are OK for the most part with feminists because to them, those women are in control. I think it’s more that these women seem to choose to be sexual rather than sexual objects….
…..I guess. I don’t know, I tried my best to explain it but I really don’t get it myself honestly. Maybe the following will give you some insight.
I visit this Livejournal site called Oh No They Didn’t, which is a gossip/pop culture/news media/etc. site that sometimes delves into cultural discussions. One of those topics of discussion is feminism, which makes sense being that a good number of members of the site are feminists. All of the posts come from actual articles, opinion pieces, and news posted online, so people on the site just post their thoughts and opinions on those articles.
To give you an idea of where I was coming from, here’s are links to discussions about Beyonce and whether she was a detriment to feminism by posing half-naked on GQ magazine:
Beyonce, GQ, and Feminism: Another perspective
Beyonce: Being photographed in your underwear doesn’t help feminism
Feminism is totally cool with Beyonce posing in her underwear
@Lokland
You are in Seoul? I am so jealous, I would love to go there and eat everything! Thanks for checking in, I wondered what you were up to.
There you go, that is exactly what I am saying. If American women cleaned up their act, they could reset male attraction triggers immediately! And despite what some men would claim, I think most men would appreciate it.
This! This is why women (at least restricted women) need to dial back the slutty vibe. They are giving the wrong impression just by dressing according to fashion. Their natural mates are declining to approach.
As I am quite intoxicated, I will simply say this:
1. I am a man
2. I like porn and I like objectifying women
3. I like taking my GF and throwing her down to the bad and just going to town
4. My GF accused me of “objectification” once and I laughed for the rest of the day
5. Quite obviously I like other things about her, too
6. There’s a woman in the office who the other men-folk consider “hot.” Not being attracted to other women myself, I did not feel this until she decorate my cube for my birthday (as she does for everyone), and I met her wonderful beta husband and saw pictures of her kids. Porn attraction =/= real life attraction
In actual women, I am quite attracted to character traits. I compare it to women perhaps being attracted to beta traits in men, though I would say my brain “suppresses” the attraction of…disreputable women-folk until they have proven themselves.
That being said, this Beta Guy absolutely enjoys the raw sexuality that is portrayed in certain media forms, and I have absolutely no objections to women restraining themselves in sexual “projection” prior to LTRs, provided they are sufficiently “engaged” in a LTR-context.
@Brendan 66
She also says that males should use their position of privilege to reduce objectification. Hmmm…I think it can be argued that men (or some men) had some privilege 50 or 100 years ago (and a lot of unpleasant responsibilities too) but I don’t see western men having more privilege than women these days.
So, again, I think she gives a reasonable message to women to stop objectifying themselves but totally misses the mark when it comes to men.
@Brendan
Watch any sporting event on TV and you’ll see plenty of advertising directed at males. Check out this Fiat ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=siWVgAzhFC8#!
or this:
There are a lot of ads directed at males that have ZERO to do with the product. The ads sell sex.
@Susan
No, of course not.
What I’ve seen in “Cosmo” and the like is not what men are attracted to. But what I do see is attention getting, often outrageously so. That’s what they’re selling to women. “Buy this product and you will get attention.”
So would I if I painted half may face royal blue and paraded around wearing strategically placed orange balloons. But I’m not about to seek that kind of attention.
I’m not surprised when your say that your friends often complain that they’re not getting the right kind of attention either.
@Brendan I listened to some more and I take back that her advice is all good for women.
The part where she says that women should put down fashion magazines makes sense.
The next point where she says that when a woman sees another woman getting attention because of her looks that she is not a problem but part of a system that is stacked against us. What would that system be? Hmmm, sounds like human nature to me. Of course, women get attention due to their bodies. Nothing wrong with that. Yes, taken to an extreme by women (or men) then it is a problem but there’s too much making it sound like women just have things stacked against them.
@Anne
I’d love to watch that – do you have a link?
I recall one guy said that the pics of herself in the slideshow were obviously meant to make her look hideous. Not so. I’ve mentioned that she went to school with my son – a very small class of just 70. She was always attractive, but honestly, having seen her grow up I am amazed how good they make her look in photos. I’m certain she could walk around NYC without makeup and attract zero attention. A lot happens to transform that blank canvas for print.
@Brian
Oh, I love that more than anything. Thank you for de-lurking.
You got me. I’m so familiar with the researchers I didn’t look twice. Now I’ll take the time to read it. Thanks for linking.
That may very well be. In which case I am addressing a smaller portion of the population than I’d hoped, but still a much larger group than is currently reading this blog.
@OTC
Thanks for clarifying. I appreciate your willingness to engage the whole post.
As for feminism fatigue, I hear you. Heldman and Wade are allies in the war against hookup culture, but it comes under the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” clause.
Sue: “Those same publications photoshop models to the point where their images are not the least bit realistic.”
I think SMV ideals/exaggerations are just that – exaggerations.
Michelangelo’s David is ridiculously jacked. Lots of hard work to get that physique. But… on top of that, he impossibly proportioned hands, legs, and head – he’d probably fall over. And, he is also deathly thin back-to-front, so there are obvious skeletal deformities. This was before 500 years before Photoshop, yet, somehow we muddle through.
And let’s not even get into the impossible social, physical, and economic heroics of a male action movie lead like James Bond, shall we?
Why is it just women that suffer?
Yes, she does say this, and I for one felt embarrassed for her. Why do feminists not understand the basic motivations of humans? I get it – the political motivation – but I don’t see how one can ignore constant evidence to the contrary without questioning one’s preconceived beliefs.
Heldman is very attractive – surely she is aware that she receives more male attention than her less attractive feminist colleagues?
A buddy of mine who is a cosmetic surgeon told me a week or two ago that more girls are coming in for breast augmentation, they are coming in at younger ages, and they are opting for bigger implants. >500 ccs used to be considered the province of a small group of “sex sells” professionals—strippers, pornstars, high-end escorts, bikini/lingerie models, some sales jobs—but he said that these larger, really high-profile sizes are now relatively mainstream.
It’s pretty common on campus to see girls go away for the summer and return with significantly larger “endowments.”. They do get a lot of attention from men and I’m sure this can test the mettle of those girls who now feel lost in the shadow of another female’s augmented chest.
Perhaps someone could create a “Boob Jobs Index” that serves as a proxy for intrasexual female competition.
@Eric
These women make their living by objectifying their bodies. It wouldn’t matter if they never had sex outside the studio. (I assume the 8 men does not include “work partners.”) I cannot think of any way of objectifying one’s body more than offering it up for mechanical sex for the camera.
@Joe
Yes! I loved the way TGP said this in the last post:
Pick the right one, and then stand beside them like you fucking vowed to do, forever.
@Bastiat
I really hate excessively large boob jobs. I can understand a woman getting a moderate boob job if she’s really flat or saggy but the volleyball-style, spherical mounds of steel are a real turn off, especially up close and personal.
If a woman must get a boob job, for god’s sake, at least have them droop a little bit to emulate the real thing.
Re photoshop
Britney Spears is a perfect celebrity, and still has cellulite http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/04/17/britney-spears-untouched/
for pages of examples:
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/tag/re-touching/
The consequences of using photoshop are probably endless. Less experienced betas might not realize that most women have blemishes (even those hideous bad acne scars from teenage years, or “See, mommy told you not to scratch” chickenpox scars, or whatever). Most women also do not have flawless are brushed perfect skin, one boob is bigger than the other, and have cellulite, regardless of “youth” and overall attractiveness. Basically “health” is attributed to a photoshop image of perfect teeth and skin, symmetry, and a perfectly angular nose and full luscious lips (you usually get one or the other). So a lot of women are tossed into the average/below average category that shouldn’t really be there, and that probably makes it a little bit harder for men to find people to be attracted IRL.
@OTC
Yeah, it’s pretty interesting how Michelangelo’s David is not realistic. Including giving him a small penis, which was considered appropriate at the time. Meanwhile, his hands and feet are huge.
Yet one could argue that manipulating photographic images is another thing entirely. For one thing, images of real people are being manipulated, but we don’t know how. We believe what we see with our eyes, even as we realize someone may have interfered with reality.
I think it’s fair to say that most readers of fashion magazines take the photos at face value.
I don’t think it’s women alone who suffer, and you raise a good point. Not just about James Bond, but alphas in general. Perhaps women objectify men less visually, but just as much in other ways, e.g. self-confidence, or arrogance. We get a glimpse of a certain attitude and we surmise the male is worthy – that’s obviously very superficial, and often dead wrong.
There was an article about just this in my newspaper from back home (mum sent it through email – always trying to make me stop reading beauty magazines). It’s called “Advice for Generation Sex” – it’s what they call my generation – early twenties.
I tried to translate a little bit but I’m afraid her points don’t come across as well.
“The girls of Generation Sex are daughters of equality. At the same time, they grow up in a world where there is plentiful of glamour models, musicians, reality stars and other celebrity women pushing their cleavages and asses out, doing as best they can to survive.
This creates several paradoxes. They should be equal, but not angry. They should be sexy, but not cheap. They must be liberated, but not vulgar.
The prevailing attitude seems to be that this is something young girls just have to live with. Some even see a source of “Girl Power” in the increasing sexualization. It is said that sex gives girls power over men.
The problem is that there is no diversity of beauty that blooms in the culture that surrounds Generation sex. There is a very specific type of body ideal and the pornographic aesthetic is dominating.
Generation Sex doesn’t need more beauty tips. They need advice on how to handle an increasingly sexualized culture.
The world’s most powerful men never listened more reverently to a woman than when Marilyn Monroe sang to President John F. Kennedy’s on his birthday. The interested glances gave her a feeling of invincibility. The woman who twisted the man around her little finger. But to be the hottest girl at a party does not mean you will be the next time. You cannot collect, invest or plan with sexual power, it is random. Moments of force is not the same as the lasting impact, even if it feels good at the time. Even the sexiest woman will age.
Self-consciousness about your own appearance can steal your energy and intellectual power from other, more important projects. The psychological ekspriment “The swimsuit survey” has been made several times with the same result. Two groups of women with similar math skills are solving the same tasks. Women in one group may only wear a bathing suit, while those in the second group are normally dressed. Women in swimsuit performs consistently far worse. The more naked, the more self-awareand therefore the poorer is their intellectual achievements.”
Probably not doing her article justice here. But the point is that sexual power is a very weak form of power. Not only because it is temporary in life-long terms, but because it can be overruled at any moment and all you can do is move along to the next party hoping you’ll be more of a hotshot there.
@Mireille
I don’t have any stats but my sense is that women tend to listen to male and female singers more equally than men, with men preferring male singers to some extent. I could be wrong. You have a lot of young teen girls listening to Justin Bieber and the like but I’m not sure if many boys listen to him. On the flipside I don’t think a lot of boys were listening to the “wholesome” teenage Britney. For that matter, I doubt a lot of men were listening to the adult sluttier Britney either.
My speculation is that women likely listen more to female singers than men do and are the prime source of demand. I would love to see any studies or stats on this.
@ Susan
People are often focused on the most superficial things.
My friend at work recently transferred to a new department. She said she realized she is an interesting person: while other people were saying “I like Dexter,” she runs races and went skydiving.
I pointed out to other people in our mutual group of friends that we do not discuss her skydiving, nor her races: we discuss our mutual interest in Big Bang and Walking Dead, and enjoy her company because she is a pleasant person, kind, and not dramatic.
That is what makes her “cool” in my opinion.
Yet, many people are often confused about what makes people pleasant. To compare to your analogy about spices in dishes, most people think massive amounts of paprika is of course the most rational choice: they can choose people no better than they can choose food, and judging our overweight nature….
MORE VODKA TIME!
@Susan
I agree with following the money and that a lot of female-directed advertising is done to make women feel inadequate and thus buy the product to redeem herself and become desirable. Hmmm, that sounds a lot like herd enforcing behavior.
As to men liking the slender women (even overly slender) I think it has to do with what was pointed out in that post that men would prefer that to too fat. Ideally the would like the girl with non-fat curves and about 20-22% body fat but will take the 17% b.f. girl that looks to thin to him over the 30% b.f. girl that is looking too fat. (Don’t hold me to those exact numbers but you get my point.)
Hans
“It is interesting if no one will admit that she dresses somewhat provocatively at times. Perhaps the bar has been lowered so much. ”
I recant.
The bar has been lowered, and I admitted above that her superbowl presentation was raunchy. I forgot about that.
I seem to be picturing the old Beyoncé who wore nothing but what looked like business skirts and country gowns. Google images “Beyoncé 2004″. Very different than now.
@Anne
The Marilyn Monroe example is a good one. She sang that in 1962, it was one of her last public appearances, just three months before she died.
This may be true, I have no idea, but I find that I have a strong preference for male singers.
This is only suggestive but look at the 25 highest-paid musicians of 2012. The top 6 are male and Britney comes in at number 7. From 8-16 there are 5 males and 4 females. from 17-25 there are 6 males and 3 females.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2012/11/28/the-worlds-highest-paid-musicians-2012/
At least at the top there tends to be a bit more demand for males. This doesn’t prove more women listen to female stars than men do but it would be consistent with women dividing btw males and females and men spending more on male stars.
BB, Han – it could be because natural cup sizes are increasing, and women need more to stick out, let alone catch up.
Sue – I watched the whole video. Her super-combative tone makes the entire thing come off to me as scolding men for finding women attractive all. Lets make us some more deltas and gammas that apologize for existing! Boy I sure hate men, too, now!
No, I am most certainly not going to use “my privilege” (whatever that is) to make *her* life better when she certainly won’t do squat for me, other than stab me in the face, and then tell me that I made her do it.
While I agree that the shown ads are in exceedingly poor taste, that’s about all I can say about them. On the plus side, I rarely if ever see stuff like that.
But the connections to women being subjugated and abused en masse are unsubstantiated hooey.
@Han
My 2 cents.
Much prefer male singers. The songs I listen too. I can name the artist/band when they are male (mostly), I can name very few female singers even though I may listen to their music a lot.
I’d also much rather see male singers in concert than female. Part of that is showmanship, men just give a better vibe about having an interesting stage presence.
@Susan
“You are in Seoul? I am so jealous, I would love to go there and eat everything! Thanks for checking in, I wondered what you were up to.”
Love the food here. Trying to feed some colleagues I brought with me is proving a challenge however, one won’t do spicy or seafood.
“There you go, that is exactly what I am saying. If American women cleaned up their act, they could reset male attraction triggers immediately! And despite what some men would claim, I think most men would appreciate it.”"
The other tidbit is that even slightly overweight here isn’t an issue. ALL (99%) of women are slim (waifer thin), even the 60 year olds.
So yes both in terms of dress and body type this is a paradise in comparison to your average North American city.
Clothing styles are drastically different here, skirts and heels are common place. Women acting and dressing and looking like women is kind of crazy.
We discussed the practice of grinding at middle school dances at some length.
I can not express how disgusted I am by that.
Watch any sporting event on TV and you’ll see plenty of advertising directed at males.
Sports, yes, I agree. That is a very small percentage of ads, and not the ones she was referring to in her TED talk. Those ads are directed at women.
Heldman’s lecture sort of reminds me of the question, why do women in our culture receive and seem dependent on external affirmation in order to maintain high self-esteem? Everyone’s sees it every day in Facebook now, so it’s a hard thing to deny. It does seem to fade in mothers some of the time… I’ve dated a few tremendously accomplished women, but they’ve all still required extrinsic affirmation constantly. At least in my experience, there’s a strong link between neuroticism and accomplishment in women, much more so then men.
At least from my point of view, it’s one of the more unfathomable things about women. I understand rationalization comes from empathy, but what’s the evolutionary reason for craving social proof? Is it to enhance female socialization?
I definitely object to Heldman claiming men should use their ‘privilege’ to stop the objectification of women. That’s pure feminist shaming tactics to try and weaken men. Men should never be made to feel ashamed of their sexuality.
I realise that this is an UMC site, but this is your tomorrow.
I’m not sure that is true. I grew up working class as did many MC and UMC people my age (Boomers). I think that one reason the WC has deteriorated is that people like myself were able to escape it. We had the impulse control and work ethic to move up, leaving our more impulsive brothers and sisters behind. The problem isn’t so much that the working class has suddenly gone to hell in a handbasket. It’s that, during the boom years, its more motivated members were able to bail out of it, leaving the less capable behind. In a way, nothing fails like success. There used to be a stabilizing element in the WC that is no longer there.
Yes, she does say this, and I for one felt embarrassed for her. Why do feminists not understand the basic motivations of humans? I get it – the political motivation – but I don’t see how one can ignore constant evidence to the contrary without questioning one’s preconceived beliefs.
Heldman is very attractive – surely she is aware that she receives more male attention than her less attractive feminist colleagues?
Yes, indeed she is, and a woman with a PhD (like my GF) is normally reflective enough to see things that way, but then again I could be giving too much credit for a sociologist (sorry, not much respect for that discipline).
I think it isn’t strictly a political motive. It’s a part of the tradition of feminism she signed onto at some point — there are basically two strands if you take the classical femstud view of the 1980s, and she has her strand. Now she is not (or I do not perceive her as, and her appearance doesn’t suggest that she is) a man-hater like the Brownmillers and so on, but she has signed on to that side — and not only its virtues but its negatives. Yes, it had some virtues (even I as a die hard antifeminist can find them) in its arguments against pornography and over-sexualization of the culture, but the problem is that the core of the idea behind that is not that these are excesses that need to be problematized specifically and shunned, but rather that the underlying impulses that drive them are the fundamental problem that need to be problematized and shunned. It’s a reductionist perspective, and it’s the one that informed that group of feminists, and she obviously subscribes to it.
The better path is somewhere in the middle, and she tries to come off that way, but while her advice to women seems good enough, the mask comes off when you see what she says about boys and men. In terms of her own attractiveness, I’m sure she doesn’t see this as a contradiction on the basis of her belief that any man she entertains is a man who is attracted to her for her brain … yep, that’s exactly right. Exactly. Right.
Of course many of us smarter guys love smart women. My GF has a PhD too. But it isn’t what attracts us. She “knows” that in a visceral way, but my guess is that the approach is that the “unwanted” male attention she gets is thrown into the “unenlightened/neanderthal” bin (useful, because it generates liberal academic bona fides while at the same time privately storing the personal self esteem boost granted by this) while only admitting certain men into the “legitimately attracted” bin (likely older male academics and successful business men of her own age, although notably she is unmarried — yes I checked out her hand, we all do that, too).
But you’re right. That outfit is atrocious and raunchy, bodysuit is OK. Opening legs, and pushed up boobs is not.
Well, there you go. Now compare Beyonce to, let’s say, Tina Turner. Tina rocked the miniskirt and all, but her main draw was her voice. Same with Janis Joplin or Grace Slick. A woman can’t just get up and sing any more like they did.
And now, all you kids, get off my lawn……….
There’s nothing I, or any man, can do to stop women abusing themselves.
They’re the ones who buy those stupid magazines. They’re the ones sticking themselves with botox and getting lumps of silicone inserted into various body parts. They simply don’t listen when we tell them that being caked with ten centimetres of makeup does not make them more attractive, or that a long skirt can be far more appealing than one that barely qualifies as a belt.
The problem is in the minds of women, and therefore beyond the ability of men to fix.
Speaking of which, did she wear a contrasting blouse under a pale jacket to highlight her chest? Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
I know you don’t endorse her statements about men, Susan. I think she’s yet another who identifies a problem, but her politics don’t allow her to see the solution.
You have a lot of young teen girls listening to Justin Bieber and the like but I’m not sure if many boys listen to him.
Not the straight ones, no.
On the flipside I don’t think a lot of boys were listening to the “wholesome” teenage Britney. For that matter, I doubt a lot of men were listening to the adult sluttier Britney either.
IME, boys tend to like gutsy music genres. The more musical the boy, the more complex his tastes.
“Heldman’s lecture sort of reminds me of the question, why do women in our culture receive and seem dependent on external affirmation in order to maintain high self-esteem? Everyone’s sees it every day in Facebook now, so it’s a hard thing to deny. It does seem to fade in mothers some of the time… I’ve dated a few tremendously accomplished women, but they’ve all still required extrinsic affirmation constantly. At least in my experience, there’s a strong link between neuroticism and accomplishment in women, much more so then men.” – Mr Nervous Toes
Well, all I can say is that when you have men like the author of the infamous “depreciating asset” quote, you get your answer. Scared to be “nexted” by BF/Husbands out of the blue when you looks fade, women have to maintain the outside and most survey regularly to see if their efforts are paying.
OTOH, people in the west are very narcissistic and every body wants attention; Facebook is just another avenue to do so. It could have been the town square ages ago.
@Susan
69 – you might say that, I couldn’t possibly comment.
69 – shocked that you would say that
71 – you’re welcome. Bon appetit
Make that 72
A ha, objectification of women, by women, as of today:
http://yogadork.com/news/comfort-and-sexualization-of-yoga-pants/
Right now in the poll, “they are comfortable,” is enjoying a healthy 92 to 8 % advantage over, “they make me feel sexy.” I think the ladies doth protest too much.
Sounds to me like just another attack on male sexuality. While I believe that fashion mags don’t necessarily represent the male ideal, I’m skeptical of any talk about “objectification” because in practice, it boils down to “if a man gets hard for some women and not others, it is Wrong and Bad and Oppressive.”
First, sexual liberation was good because it got under the skin of those awful conservative white males. Now, it is bad because males are enjoying it too much.
An easy way to predict a feminist’s position on something: if men like it, it is bad and must be banned.
@ADBG #89
I wouldn’t say that the average woman objects to being the object of male desire, I would say that the the problem is beoing only that.
For your entertainment, here’s a link to a verbal duel I had with a feminist over objectification:
http://acculturated.com/2013/02/15/forget-feminism/
Mirielle,
I mention Facebook because it makes all this behaviour obvious. I don’t think external affirmation is anything new in women.
Men face the same competitive pressure that women do, but they don’t get external support. If a man’s career falls apart, you can be sure that he faces a risk of divorce when they can’t make the mortgage payment. To bring back the Facebook example, how often do you get male friends posting, “Hell yeah, I sold five cars off the lot today,” and all the male friends liking the status and leaving comments, “High five!”
But a pretty women posts a new profile picture, with no describing text whatsoever, it immediately evokes fifty likes an repeated squeals of, “Your (sic) so pretty!!!”
I may have a hypothesis for why this is so. The default male organizational unit is the hierarchy, and its enforced with violence (or the threat of violence). The default female organizational unit is Kant’s anarchy, and its enforced with shame (or the threat of shame). However, the female anarchy is by its nature much more dynamic and requires a much higher degree of effort to maintain. For a woman, the consequences of shaming someone are typically pretty minor, especially within our culture of rule of law. At the same time, the diffuse pecking order needs to be established with many, repeated little exchanges of favours, hence non-stop craving for external affirmation. Whereas for men, escalating from threat of violence to actual violence carries with it a heaping shit-tonne of risk. So the male hierarchy is much more static than the female anarchy.
Feminism has been trying to get women to join the male hierarchy, which implies abandonment of feminine anarchy, but it will never work so long as women are friends with other women. This is, in my opinion, the gravest mistake of feminism. It’s lead by women who try and compete with men within the hierarchy, but using shame instead of violence. Hence the fallacy of the ‘alpha female’: she is a masculine woman, and while she can compete with men as long as she doesn’t face violence, she fails as a woman. The gig’s up, if men can recognize shaming tactics and expose them, they become more powerless. With the Internet, it’s basically impossible to keep a movements true motives and methods masked forever. Back in the 1970s and 80s we men didn’t know what women talked about behind closed doors, but know we do.
@J
What else are women being taught to exhibit (beyond non-committed sex appeal)?
Sassy attitude? Men don’t actually like that.
Ball busting go getterness? Sod that for a game of soldiers
Credentialism, particularly in worthless subjects? We don’t care
Can’t women try selling femininity? They used to, and men love that stuff. Course you can’t sell them basketball sized boob jobs, New car every year and mcmansions – so megacorp has no use for that. The divorce and grievance industry might not be keen either.
What else are women being taught to exhibit (beyond non-committed sex appeal)?
I know a lot of lovely young women who have more to offer than the things you list. And that would include good character and nice personalities.
:delurking:
Just a quick note, Michelangelo’s David looks weirdly proportioned because most of the photos we look at of the statue are taken from the wrong angle. Michelangelo was a master of perspective and he carved David so he could be seen from his intended place on the roof of Florence’s main cathedral. This is why his hands and head are out of proportion, as we were meant to look up at him (with David looking toward us, rather than from his side). Plans changed and the statue was instead put in the town square, but still atop a pedestal so that Michelangelo’s skill could be appreciated.
David’s penis still looks a bit small even from the right angle but apparently this seems to be down to the dimensions of the piece of marble Michelangelo was given. If the penis had been made any larger, it would have interfered with the lines of David’s right hand (again, when correctly oriented).
***
I’ve followed this blog for years but have never commented mostly because I’m a bit of an outlier as far as the subject matter goes . . . I’m an unapologetic feminist, would probably register as a negative number on the SMP value scale and am already in a committed relationship with a lovely man whom I love and treasure. I just like reading the range of opinions here. Thank you, Susan for your efforts!
Welcome, girl behind glass.
This discussion of culture and feminism is mostly over my head, so forgive me if I veer into pedantry here, but I think this is a significant misreading of the aforementioned situation.
She was a troubled woman who was infatuated with the president and she reached out to him clumsily and dysfunctionally, in the only way she knew how. She was not in the dominant position. She was pleading with him, but he’d already gotten what he wanted from her. He used her like a cheap rag and tossed her away.
It’s one thing to have trouble keeping it in your pants, but it’s quite another to treat a troubled woman so callously. It’s one of the factors of my distaste for the Kennedys.
I digress.
There are far superior examples of Marilyn converting her sexual capital into social and financial gain, such as any number of her films or public appearances from the 1950s.
@Anne
+10000 Are you a sister on high heels? Being a model is a constant state of fear that your looks won’t get you to eat today (exaggerating) is hard to plan when having a pimple can have your designer call you troll and refuse to let you wears any of his masterpieces.
Note: The slutty Korean dress style described above doesn’t give me the easy last feel just easier. So not slutty but hella sexy.
[IMG]http://i46.tinypic.com/s4oxm8.jpg[/IMG]
Porn, i.e., technology also plays a large role.
I will say CGI porn will be a game changer in boners men will be able to have sex with 13. 10 inches waists, long legs, tons of hair, gravity defying breasts…yeah like a cheaper Real Doll. Things will get uglier before they get better.
The problem isn’t so much that the working class has suddenly gone to hell in a handbasket. It’s that, during the boom years, its more motivated members were able to bail out of it, leaving the less capable behind.
A tiny scale brain drain? Interesting.
When I hear the word culture, I reach for my Browning.
But I did find this:
It pleases me in relation to my decision to cease consuming pornography and other artificial sexual stimulation.
@Nervous Toes,
It’s an interesting argument but I disagree on some aspects.
Women treat other women or men the way they hope to be treated. This is why you’ll see a group reinforce and comfort a woman who obviously did something stupid; it’s not that they endorse the stupidity of the act, just that they hope they’d be receive with the same gentle treatment if they ever fall to the same plight. You could call it diplomacy, calculation, or even hypocrisy, this is how the system works. No door is closed for good because you never know.
Also I’d say that while men get no apparent support, at least not through Facebook, they get praise in the things they do usually. Women just get support, no praise. Read with matching tone: “A man that cooks? Wow!”; “A woman that doesn’t cook? Wow!”
From my personal experience, I think the men’s hierarchy you talk about is in great part supported by women as well. If it isn’t for the supposed stability marriage gives to men, to the extent that married men actually get more promotion/pay than their single colleagues, it is evidenced by all the “visibility” work women are supposed to be doing in order to make their husbands stand out in society (think PTA/charity/advocacy or just straight up produce children!). Basically, some women by their own networks make excellent PR for their spouse and families. I actually object to the word “anarchy” since there is a logic, a rationale and a flexible organization in all that activity. While men think of being top dog, most women think of being the most comfortable/efficient dog possible. Most of the time, both strategies are complementary.
Also you speak of male hierarchy and women wanting to integrate it and being wrong for it. What you don’t consider is that most people, read men, who lead only consider ONE type of power, financial and political; some men have a lot of it, most men have some of it, most women in general have none of it. Therefore even the Alpha female (meaning the best mother/wife) would still rank at the bottom of that supposed universal hierarchy in which (I contend) women were already integrated but kept at the bottom by artificial rules/prejudice/economic reasons.
I agree that the previous feminist paradigm was to emulate men since men had all the power (the type of power that is recognized at least); it is clear that men can only pursue such path because they are “free” of the duty/urges to procreate or care for children. However, I’d say that feminism is diverse and has evolved. Women who compete with men are sometimes violent (how many Hillary Clinton jokes do you want to hear?) and chastised for it. I’d contend that these women are not trying to be a “successful man” or a “successful woman”; they’re trying to be a successful human being who has diverse abilities and interests and wants them acknowledged, regardless of their gender.
I think you’re reading that dichotomy from a man’s perspective: a zero sum game. New feminists of my generation don’t see it that way. Competing on the market is tough in itself, and you better use every talent you have. Sure you can’t go to the strip club with the clients and the other male company managers but you can certainly chat up the clients’ wives in order to make allies even in their houses and know about all the stuff that is going to make them eat in your hands at the next business presentation. We all play with what we’re got. A failed woman in 2012 is a woman who refuses to take advantage of all the possibilities available to her to improve her (family) station. Also goes for men. It has nothing to do with failing as women in the men arena. On the contrary, I think a lot of men are refusing to adjust and use/learn “female” qualities/skills to get ahead in life, because it isn’t “manly” and other men would disapprove. I bet they’d disapprove you as top dog, but what do you care?
Once upon a time, men thought women who had interests and wanted more than caring for kids crazy and inadequate, not to say genetically incapable of such anyway. Now that women have demonstrated that they can do that and more, men are now finding the great value hidden in the home which they used to take for granted then. I think there is a learning curve and we’re just at the beginning. There will need to be a lot of convincing on the part of men that they won’t revert to antiquated customs once the women decide to come back to the house. I know some men on this forum think the “oppression” was ages ago (just like racism doesn’t exist anymore…) and that we are clearly under the tyranny of Queen Georgia now, I simply disagree because I see examples everyday of the inequality, maybe it is because I’m a black woman and an immigrant and I never played with a barbie doll (sniff), but this is what I know. I also unfortunately went on to study and work in women studies and affairs in Africa and such, helping women who are not living it up like the “entitled sluts” threads are made of, so you’ll excuse my combativeness on the issue, I’m not just considering the US in my posts.
Sorry for the ridiculously long post! lol
@J
Young women? At my age? With my reputation? Scandalous!
Anyway my point was what cultcha was selling da Ute of today. Not that no such women could still exist. They may well do, but that’s not for lack of trying by rihanna and her ilk
@ Mireille
Disclaimer: Do not take these as personal attacks. I’m just giving you my perspective on feminism.
First of all, here in the US, no-fault divorce and the family court system has made it impossible for a man to keep a family, since the wife can punish the man with ruinous damages for any reason or none at all. Getting rid of this obvious unfairness is denounced as “going back to antiquated customs” or “oppression.” I don’t know your position on this, but punishing innocent men seems to be a feminist value.
Second, male sexuality is routinely shamed thanks to feminism. Anything that hits male attraction triggers is denounced as “Shallow” and “objectification” and is thus treated as dangerous. College campuses, in their efforts to prevent rape, spare no effort in making women paranoid of all men.
Third, upper-middle-class women get jobs for appearance’s sake, so that they can prove their feminist street cred before becoming wives. Because if they don’t they may be seen as too respectful to their husbands. And that’s bad, say the feminists.
Fourth, feminism hasn’t evolved one bit. It’s still the same old man-bashing game, only now they control every facet of the culture and do everything possible to attack men. They are explicitly privileged in the workplace, in the schools, in the government (all the male Congresscritters, whatever their party, move heaven and earth to be seen as Good Feminists), in the church, and in the media. The unwritten rule is that women cannot be criticized no matter how they behave, but men are always fair game. Because if you do criticize misbehaving women, you’re a “misogynist.”
Let me end with a quote commonly attributed to Voltaire:
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”
In our culture, the answer is obvious.
Take two!
http://tinypic.com/r/s4oxm8/6
take three?
I can’t remember who, but I think it was a woman who said that the objectification of human beings is as inevitable as war. But out of all the objects, she would rather be a sex object. Real objects don’t have sex.
While I do believe sexual objectification may yield poorer outcomes for both men and women, who interpret these images as society’s expectations, there is something primitive (as with primates) about older females controlling the sexuality of younger females. It is likely more about preserving social harmony than the protecting the dignity of a particular individual. But of course, it easier to sell self restraint (in individualistic societies) as a benefit rather than as a sacrifice to social harmony.
Anyway, when she started using a metaphor of our bodies as tools to shape an environment, I thought of man as machine, as the great genderless mass sinking their industrial plows into the earth of a Diego Rivera mural. Is desexualized objectification so much better as a regimen?
What is the fascination with whores and soldiers? They carry such strong stigmas, such unerasable pasts. Perhaps that is the impetus behind their modern day media glorification in the West: a society in shortage of strong recognizable identities paints with the strongest colors they know, sex and violence.
@Ion
Its a good question, and perhaps the answer is not as simple as people like seeing it, but if being bombarded with such images, even good people will get “used to it” after awhile
Plus @Susan
3. Some external force causes a swift and dramatic restriction of sexuality, e.g. an epidemic.
I have just finished the book Robert H. Frank “The Darwin’s economy”. The book s is very irritating to the former libertarian, but at the same time, he has some interesting insights. What I will write below will be long and at the same time it is not really serious, it’s just interesting intellectual exercise, so to speak.
E.g. that individual competition, when every actor acts rationally and tries to achieve the best personal result, may often ends in losses for everyone. E.g. his example are hockey players: when given choice, they always ride without helmets. However, when asked whether they support the regulations to require everyone to wear helmets, they overwhelmingly say yes, they do. WHy?
Because when they all allowed to not to wear protective helmets, each one riding without helmet gains a competetive advantage over other players – at the cost of increased personal risk. Other players quickly will try to adjust, so they will also ride without the helmets. At the end of the day, no player wears helmets, no one has competetive advantage and they are were they were at the very beginning: with a small difference that they play now with much greater risk of injury.
The same is with sullty behavior. Initially, woman who behaves more sexually (more “slutty”) gains competetive advantage. Those who are “too slutty” are punished, of course, but those, who are moderately more sexual, definetely gain advantage. But “too slutty” and “more sexual” are relative terms. When other woman are quick to reduce their competetive losses, the definition of “too slutty” is pushed and pushed, with the unpleasant consequences (higher cost to find valuable male for long-term relationships, sexual objectification etc). Now, if all woman would come to the table and negotiate, maybe the majority would vote to get back to the old rules. But it is obviously impossible.
Now the not serious part
Frank argues that in situation like that the government should intervene 
And that it’s better no to regulate, but to tax the bad behaviours. Think about it: wouldn’t that be interesting, to live in the world, when every woman is free to wear whatever she likes, but at the cost of higher taxes? What about taxing premarriage sex? Now, that’s an idea so hilarious so I wonder whether I should write a s-f story based on that. A government clerks going around the town, and checking whether females have premarital sex 
because if the sex is available only within marriage, males would compete for the access to marriage and the options for females would be more varied 
Yikes, definetely I will write a story like that
@CrisisEraDynamo
I don’t know your position on this, but punishing innocent men seems to be a feminist value.
I don’t know about USA, but in Poland it’s not. I was discussing in Polish feminist forum (I am not a feminist; I just love to discuss with people who have different opinion than me) and the topic on divorces came. WHile some feminists were indeed blind to the injustices of the system, the common argument was something like “you deserved it” or “we have enough of our own problems, if you see it as unjust, fight it on your own, we still fight for women’s right” – still, there were few feminists who strongly opposed them. One of them was, according to her own words, former LGBT rights activist and active feminist. But she now fights for the father’s rights. She said that feminism is about equal rights for anyone and about people not treated according to the stereotypes – and fathers got a short shrift in Polish courts because of stereotype that only mother can really care of child. She hates such stereotypes and that’s why she fights in courts for father’s rights, she continued.
Other feminist said that the unjust treatment of fathers is a direct result of patriarchy: that patriarchy expects that only mothers care for children, that fathers should be tough, while mothers are soft, that fathers just work and provide – while mothers should stay at home and raise the children. She said that “if you think it’s better for the family if mother stays with children at home, then why you are surprised that the court shares your opinion? Why you think you can choose only right consequences of the patriarchy, and not the bad consequences?”
ANd indeed, I think she’s right, at least partially. The unjust treatment on fathers is not just a result of feminism. It is also a result of stereotypes, traditional stereotypes, that primary role for women is being a mother, and as such there is nothing better for child as being with mother. Now, I’ve read about USA and your court system things, which are unbelieveable, but still – I doubt those are results of feminism only. Rather, it’s an interaction between traditional stereotypes AND feminism.
@ szopen
Thanks for the response.
Now, for a general comment not aimed at anyone in particular…
Feminists have a disturbing tendency to take their preferences and try to codify them into law, US constitution be damned. This is what I fear from talks like this — that they plan to use the force of the state to ensure that boys act the way feminists dictate. And the government never says no to a feminist.
They want to straitjacket male sexuality as much as possible.
“I will say CGI porn will be a game changer in boners men will be able to have sex with 13. 10 inches waists, long legs, tons of hair, gravity defying breasts…yeah like a cheaper Real Doll. Things will get uglier before they get better. ”
that and non-hormonal contraception for men will just about cap off women’s innate sexual power over (gullible) men. Cool.
Then we might be able to discuss a balanced society, maybe. Equal rights AND equal responsibilities for all.
But first they’ll just try to tax men to support women’s choices to have kids with alphas financed by the state (i.e. the taxes of reproductively disenfranchised men). (in fact this already happens. modern society pumps nett resources from men to women). I believe that a batchelor tax has been used in the past (notably Rome. get a lot of search engine result links for the US too).
I hope at this point men GTOW and starve the beast rather than knuckle under and cough up. Starve the beast, bring it to the table.
But cheer up, we may not get to that point. We might just have global financial collapse first. I was watching a youtube vid by Stefan Molyneux where he says that if you stripped Bill Gates of his entire fortune, it would finance the deficit of the US for fifteen days!
There Will Be No Economic Recovery. Prepare Yourself Accordingly.
Stefan Molyneux
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYkl3XlEneA
the whole thing is good, but the Gate’s bit is in the 43:00-50:00 time band.
Also
Cook County Illinois owes $108 Billion(!)
Welfare spending up 378% in the past 30 years. But poverty is up…?
US national debt up more on the first day of 2013 than 1776-1941 combined.
I have no idea what his reputation is in the States, perhaps someone here could enlighten me. He’s an interesting philosopher. Appears to be talking sense…scary stuff. He doesn’t look happy as reels out the official numbers and he’s not selling financial advice (though he does ask for contributions towards a bowling ball polisher for his forehead at the end – lmao).
(And don’t be thinking that I’m claiming to be in a better boat. As Stefan says, Europe is ahead of you in some ways. Any country that makes a living off of selling things to the West is not looking good. The west is done – stick a fork up it.)
Also,
Why You Are Unemployed – Part 2 ‘The death of the middle class’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U4R36WjFCI
1 2 3 … 9 »
{ 3 trackbacks }