You don’t have to understand it. What you have to do is to understand that other people understand it. And that such other people matter.
Language has an impact. You’ve been told over and over again in this thread the impact of that particular piece of language on multiple people. The fact that it has no such impact on you has nothing to do with it. The technical semantics of the construction of the sentence are equally irrelevant.
The fact that we keep having to deal with arguments along the lines of ‘this doesn’t impact me in that fashion so I don’t see why it should impact anybody else in that fashion’ is relevant. And annoying.
Just to put it simply, Max S., do you see that some people interpret “I’d hit that” as carrying an implication that the “that” is an object of less-than-personhood status? “I’d have sex with her,” at least acknowledges the object of the desire as a human being.
I’m not your husband, but from my own experience, I say both (inside my head). At different times, and sometimes at the same time.
Men and women think about sex differently. Sometimes, I think objectifying thoughts about women. I am not thinking “what a lovely person that young lady with the big breasts must be, I would certainly like to have a committed relationship with her that includes mutually respective sexual interactions”. I am thinking only about the big breasts. Yes, there is a person on the far side of the breasts. But I am not thinking about that at the moment.
I am not distracted as the OP says he is, I don’t stare or make comments, I have never sexually assaulted or harassed anyone. But I still think the thoughts. We can certainly socialize or shame men into not acting on the thoughts, and we might even need to do a better job of it than we do. We can even, probably, socialize or shame them into not expressing the thoughts out loud, or to express them in a more roundabout way or using different terms. But I don’t think you can socialize or shame the thoughts into not occurring.
I guess I agree with Max S. - “I’d like to fuck that” and “I’d like to fuck that woman” or “I’d like to see more of that ass” are all expressing the same thought. They are all IMO objectifying.
In circumstances where it leads to women being stared at or harassed or being treated outwardly in demeaning ways - sure, condemn them. Or if you don’t want to know, you don’t have to. If you’d rather not hear, I won’t tell you. If for any reason you would an insight into the male mind, that’s a big one, in my experience. Men and women think differently about sex.
I did say I couldn’t imagine my husband saying those things - speaking is an action, as is writing things down.
I think there’s a parallel with physical violence here. Pretty much everyone has thoughts of physical violence from time to time. Some people might have them pretty often. But we’re taught that it’s wrong to act on thoughts of physical violence, and that even speaking of them needs to be done with some care.
Likewise, people thinking about sex is pretty common. We are socialized as to the appropriate ways to act and speak about those thoughts.
People who can’t control their violent or sexual impulses are a problem for society, whether they are acting out on those desires or merely so distracted by them they become a traffic hazard.
Part of acting in a civilized manner isn’t just about what how we understand words and actions, it’s also about how they’re perceived by other people. Part of living in society is acknowledging that sometimes we have to yield a bit in our own speech and actions, and in turn others need to yield to us sometimes. Physical freedom is not unlimited - your right to swing your fist around ends where my nose begins. Likewise, other freedoms are not without limits as well.
You are correct, of course - I misinterpreted “saying” as “saying in my head”. My apologies.
The difference being, of course, that when I am sitting in the third hour of some interminable meeting with some twit droning on and on about issues that have already been addressed, I would never, ever think, even for a second, of the places in his throat where I could jab a pencil and shut him up forever.
I think there’s a real difference between thinking thoughts that are focused on a woman’s body, and expressing those thoughts in a way that reinforces the idea that a woman is a series of parts. I mean, just having a response to stimulus is fine. I don’t even think of that as objectification, because you aren’t reframing the woman from person into object. You haven’t gotten that far. But when someone boasts of how they want to “hit that” and “get all up in that” and so on, it’s like breaking conventions of usage to emphasize that you don’t see the other as a person.
I also don’t think it’s a dichotomy between “think of her as an object” and “want to have a romantic relationship with someone” . It’s just “think of her as a person” and “think of her as an object”. I see nothing objectionable with 'there’s this woman at work, and to be honest I don’t even like her, but she’s distractingly attractive. Something about her just checks all my boxes and I honestly have to like, prep before a meeting so I don’t get distracted. I have to have STRATEGIES. But at the same time, wow, if I were stranded in an elevator with her I’d claw my way out. WAY too many stories about her cats".
See, that’s an amusing anecdote. You don’t have to like someone to see them as a person.
On the other hand, something like “There’s this woman at work and she’s got this ass and I can think about is how much I’d like to hit that. I catch myself staring at it all the time. I’d get all up in it if I could”. That’s objectifying.
Why on earth do you think this sort of reaction is limited only to men?
And why are you talking as if people in the thread were objecting to thoughts inside one’s own head? There are lots of things people think inside their own heads that they need to learn not to say in public; and/or that they need to learn how to say in public in such a fashion as not to upset other people.
Saying/writing anything where others can hear/see it is an action that has an influence on other people. (Is this the sixth time this has been one way or another said in this thread, or the sixtieth, or the six hundredth? I’m losing track.)
Certainly there’s a difference between the thoughts in my head, and expressing them. But the thoughts in my head are, indeed, objectifying women, insofar as I am thinking just of the parts. “I’d hit that” and “I am thinking sexually objectifying thoughts about the new administrative assistant” both express the same thought, IOW. If the first is more offensive than the second, I understand that.
It doesn’t seem to me to be boasting, in either case. Because I am not re-framing the woman - she is being objectified in my thought in both cases, no matter how I express it. Maybe the re-framing comes when I decide whether or not to express it, either by my actions towards her, or even when I decide whether to say it in my out-loud voice.
I am not boasting, because it doesn’t seem to me to be something to boast about, any more than something to be apologetic about. It just is, and as long as I don’t get distracted or drool visibly or treat the woman differently, it’s just a guy thing.
You could, just a suggestion, when you’re talking about such a woman/body part, throw in “I know a woman is more than the sum of her parts, but this particular XYZ caught my attention and I started thinking about how I’d like to do this that and the other.” That at least acknowledges there’s another person in the picture even if your dick is all about the one thing.
It’s a pretty subtle distinction we’re making, but it shows the divide between male and female pretty well. When you are speaking/writing/otherwise acting to express your fantasy it would be appreciated if you made some token nod that the person attached to the bodypart you’re fantasizing about exists. And that might be as simple as saying “her” or “she” instead of “that”.
I don’t think men appreciate it when when speak of them as if all they’re good for is sperm donation and can’t be trusted to be responsible for their children - it’s objectifying all men, reducing them to stereotype, etc. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it better if there some acknowledgment that not all men are deadbeats? “I know not all men are assholes, but this particular guy failed to do X or Y when he said he would.” sort of phrasing.
“Sometimes I think that guy’s a creep” doesn’t translate into “all men are good for is sperm donation”. Neither does “nice ass” translate into “all women are good for is sex”.
So you understand and agree that the OP post in this thread was offensive?
Do you also understand and agree that going into further detail describing the particular body parts being thought of, as was also done in the OP, was also offensive?
Talking about the ass as if it’s part of a thing rather than part of a person is a problem.
I’m getting the distinct impression, though, that no matter how many times, or in what words, we say this, some people are not going to hear it. Because, again, that’s been said over and over and over again already.
I think I am beginning to understand… would you say the phrase “I want to fuck her” never has the meaning “I want to fuck that female’s body”? Or maybe would you say the phrase “I want to fuck that” never has the meaning “I want to fuck that female’s body”?
Because if you can construe both “I want to fuck her” and “I want to fuck that” as “I want to fuck that female’s body”, I do not understand why you say “fuck her” is less offensive than “fuck that” in the specific context of nate’s post.
I had written up a long analysis of those sentences, but on second thought that was largely unnecessary. It would be a shame to just throw it away though, so I’m putting that in this spoiler.
[SPOILER]Let us first analyze the syntax of the sentence, “My wife, I want to have sex with that”.
Notice the left-dislocation of “my wife” and the demonstrative pronoun “that”. In particular, demonstrative pronouns properly represent people only when the antecedent is identified in the same clause. This is because demonstrative pronouns are impersonal, and it can be confusing to describe a person with an impersonal pronoun without explicitly and immediately making clear that the pronoun refers to a person. The implication is that demonstrative pronouns cannot properly represent people in a dislocated noun phrase.
The following sentences are grammatically sound: INDENT"That is my friend John Doe who is sick."
(2)“That is my friend who is sick, John Doe.”
(3)“John Doe, I have always wanted to punch that guy.”
(4)“My wife, I like that woman.”
(5)"My wife, I want to have sex with her.
In sentence 1-2, the word that is a demonstrative pronoun referring to my friend John Doe or my friend respectively. The antecedents are within the same clause and the sentences read naturally.
In sentence 3-4 the pronoun that is actually a demonstrative adjective because it modifies the noun guy or woman, respectively. Demonstrative adjectives need not have their antecedent in the same clause, and these sentences also read naturally. There might be some confusion as to whether the sentences constitute dislocation or the speaker is simply addressing John Doe/his wife, but this is easily resolved in context.
In sentence 5 a personal pronoun is used, not a demonstrative pronoun. Personal pronouns need not have the antecedent in the same clause, and unless the pronoun references the subject it is often awkward to do so. The dislocation with personal pronouns is allowed and this sentence reads naturally.
Now let’s look at a couple sentences with faulty syntax.
(6)“That is sick, John Doe is my friend”
(7)“That is sick, my friend John Doe.”
(8)“John Doe, I have always wanted to punch that.”
(9)“My wife, I like that.”
(10)"My wife, I want to have sex with that.
Each of these sentences is assumed to have been spoken with the same intent as the sentences 1-5, but poor syntax makes these more difficult to understand. Every one of these sentences 6-10 misuses the demonstrative pronoun, that, by placing the antecedent in a separate clause.[/INDENT]
It is clear that something is wrong with the syntax of the second sentence you gave, and I understand why you have trouble envisioning its use in with affection. But let’s look at the semantics and context.
Again, the sentence is “My wife, I want to have sex with that”.
First it must be determined whether the leading clause is a dislocated element or an adjunct given to physically address the speaker’s wife. Context would easily resolve this question if the wife was not in the room, or if she was the only other person in the room, or if the speaker turned or otherwise indicated that he was speaking to his wife.
The big question is what exactly that refers to. The poor syntax prevents us from knowing through words alone. If the speaker is not speaking to his wife, it is safe to assume that refers to his wife or at least her body. Such an exchange might go:
[INDENT]FRIEND: “I don’t like girls with .”
HUSBAND: “I do.”
FRIEND: “I don’t believe it. A man can’t want to have sex with .”
HUSBAND: “I can, and have.”
FRIEND: “With who?”
HUSBAND: “My wife, I want to have sex with that.”
In this case, that refers to whatever is.
If the husband is talking to his wife, it might be easier to imagine similar sentences being uttered with affection:
“I want to fuck that”, spoken during sex
“I want to have sex with that”, spoken as silly hyperbole
“I would still have sex with that”, spoken in a reassuring manner[/INDENT]
It seems to me that a husband might say this sort of thing to his wife with affection and smiles, what do you think? If you agree, we have a syntax problem, not a semantic problem. Out of context, the sentence is only dehumanizing. When made in certain contexts, however, it can be both dehumanizing and show affection.[/SPOILER]
I don’t think nate’s posts come close to showing affection. My point is that, in context, saying “I want to fuck the hell out of her” about a stranger is equally sexually objectifying as “I want to fuck the hell out of that”. This is unlike you and your husband, because presumably you and your husband are on intimate terms. As you said, you can imagine your husband saying he wants “have sex with her”, where “her” is you but no sexual objectification occurs. With your husband, context matters.
I don’t think the same can be said about nate or any person walking down the street, looking at an complete stranger and thinking “I want to fuck the hell out of her”. No matter how you cut it, that is sexual objectification of the first degree.
Apologies, I clearly misrepresented your position.
Honestly I’m not sure how to avoid unconscious sexism. You feel like I am devaluing your position based on my life experiences, yet I am too dense to understand why you might feel that way.
My best guess is that next time I make an assertion as I did in post #165, I should state explicitly that I believed “that” and “her” are equally objectifying in context. But I’m not sure why that would convince you that I am not devaluing your position.
Maybe I ought to have explicitly asked Mijin to explain how “that” is more objectifying in a way that “her” is not. Maybe I ought to have gone back through the thread again, but this time responded individually to the “some” people Mijin said took offense (such as yourself). But I am afraid my failure to understand how “that” is very clearly objectifying in a way that “her” is not would be seen as sexism on my part. I have now read this thread and the ATMB thread through multiple times and I still don’t understand how you can think the one is more offensive than the other, in context.
Maybe I’m just a lost cause. But I agree with your entire last paragraph.
Broomstick, that post (179) was a good read and gave me a lot to think about. Thanks.
(Really good point in 189 too.)
There’s no question IMO that “that” is more objectifying than “her”. However, I also think that if it’s valuable to get insight into the way people think (YMMV, but I do think it is valuable), then accurately representing that objectification in one’s “confession” is vital.
I recognize that other people have opinions, even strong opinions. I have opinions myself.
I want to understand your opinion. I am not entitled to that knowledge, but if you are willing to explain yourself, I try to listen - but I might not agree, and that’s OK in my book.
Neither am I denying that language has impact, even the possibility that language in this very thread may drive female posters away from the message boards. I wouldn’t be surprised. That’s not what I don’t understand. I don’t understand why, in the context of the original post, “she” is less offensive than “that”. I would think they are both offensive. So far the complaints about that verbiage go along the lines of, ‘you basically dehumanized all women’, but I think using “she” would also dehumanize women. He is still reducing women - strangers - to objects of sexual desire, what difference does it make if he says “she” when he means “that female’s body”?
Finally, though I don’t see why (in context) the word “she” is less offensive to some women than “that”, I do not base this on whether it impacts myself. Even if I agreed that “she” is less offensive, I am still a male and I am not the random woman walking on the street. My understanding on the impact of language on other people, or the lack thereof, is based on my understanding of other people, which is flawed, but it is the closest thing to empathy I’ve got.
Does it have to be more complicated than " ‘That’ is a term used for things, and ‘her’ is a term used for people"?
I mean, I get it - both phrasings are objectifying as hell in context. I’m not sure there’s any way to say, “I see that woman as a fucktoy and want to use her sexually purely on the basis of her appearance with no regard to anything else about her” without it being objectifying. But even given that, there’s still the fact that one phrasing uses a term about people and one uses a term about things.
I mean, the phrases “I quit.” and “Fuck this fucking goddamn shit, I’m fuckin’ outta here!” mean the same thing, but I’m quite sure that my mother would react to them differently based on verbiage alone. This ‘that’ business seems the same.
I also interpret “I’d hit that” as carrying the implication that the “that” is an object of less-than-personhood status.
In my opinion “I’d have sex with her” can acknowledge that the object of desire is a human being, but I don’t think this holds for all contexts. Specifically, if “her” refers to a random stranger on the street, and the statement was made solely based on her physical appearance, that the person making such remarks is not referring to “her” the living, breathing woman with thoughts and feelings and hopes and dreams. Instead the observer is referring to “her” the woman’s attractive body, which is indistinguishable from “that” in “I’d hit that” if that sentence was used instead.