It’s not indistinguishable.
I have a confession to make. When I see an attractive woman, in any context, my concentration shifts
Um, based on the language, I can see no valid alternative to but to interpret the “her” as referring to the woman as a person.
Not a person that he cares anything about, but undoubtedly a person. Unless you think he’s referring to her as a car or boat or something.
There’s your answer, in yet another wording, adding to all the ways this has been phrased in this thread already.
The fact that in an entirely different sort of sentence structure “that” as part of a phrase can also refer to a person doesn’t mean that it’s a suitable word to use for a human in a sentence in which the word “that” by itself is the object. English just plain doesn’t work that way.
Do you understand why being asked to answer the same question, or rebut the same statement, over and over and over and over again might drive away posters, female or otherwise?
I don’t mean that only for you, while we’re at it.
[/QUOTE]
Objectification, at least in the sense I mean it, isn’t about an individual. It’s a paradigm, a general way of thinking about women across our culture. It doesn’t exist in isolation. Saying “I’d hit that” and expecting a generally positive response is establishing and perpetuating the idea that women are objects. Seeing something and having a reaction isn’t that, because that’s physiological, not cultural. There’s no social element at all to the stimulus and the response. Cultural is taking that reaction and framing it in a subject/object relationship, through language. And honestly, if someone’s internal monologue often uses the language of things to describe people, I think they can and should strive to change that, because it’s perpetuating that cultural idea. But it’s not the moment of reaction that is the problem.
To say it another way, in that moment of lust, I think the woman is neither person NOR object. It’s like, quantum. When we frame that relationship as I/object, especially aloud and to others, that’s when society is being nudged toward a toxic paradigm.
Because her and she are the more normal and obvious words to use when describing a person. The deliberate substitution of a word that means THING, or the deliberate elision of she/her–which ever way you read it–is dehumanizing.
That’s it. That’s as far as you have to go. “That” is unambiguously a thing. “Her” is nominally a human being. Period. That’s it. That makes “that” worse than “her.” That makes “that” unambiguously demeaning, while “her” isn’t.
Yes, further context might make the sentence that includes “her” also objectifying and that might be a basis for further criticism. But by using “that,” you are making it unambiguous and unarguable that you are literally speaking of a woman as in object.
In the same way as I said before, if you use “male” or “female” as a noun for a human being, that’s intrinsically dehumanizing compared to “man” and “woman.” That doesn’t make what you’re saying with “man” and “woman” okay, but it’s unambiguous and undeniable.
So, how many more ways do you want the same thing explained to you?
Think of it this way. Would you ever say “I’d love to discuss philosophy with that!” referring to a woman? (Unless you were being way ironic.) No, since in that sentence discussing philosophy implies a person with a brain. Use of “that” in the sentence in question implies a body only, not really a brain.
Think about what other contexts you’d use “that” to refer to a person? I wonder if slaveowners used “that” to refer to slaves? I can’t think of a lot of other examples.
** Max S.**, I don’t think you can perform a low level analysis to figure this one out. The impression of a phrase is based not only on the words themselves, but also on a bunch of other information and associations stored in the brain due to culture, usage, experience, etc.
Not really. People are going to be wrong or think differently on the internet and in other realms. That doesn’t mean I am going to withdraw. If I feel a particular line of conversation is not worth investing any time into I will stop wasting time with that particular conversation. But the beauty of a forum or other forms of online communication is that bandwidth and memory are relatively cheap and it’s easy to switch to a different conversation.
True dat.
In fairness to you, Max S., prior to this thread I would have thought of “I’d hit that” as a turn of phrase. Some kind of deliberately awkward grammar, like “Is drifting still a thing?”
Not that it was part of my personal vernacular though.
But when some here said it caused offence, I could appreciate why. It is talking about a woman as if she is a Real Doll.
I remember when I first heard that idiom in the ‘90s, I found it bizarre and kind of shocking. More for the “hit” than the “that”.
I understand and agree with all that you wrote here. We’re making progress!
What I don’t understand is why a woman would be more offended if nate expressed sexual objectification with unambiguous and unarguable language versus potentially ambiguous and arguable language. Or perhaps I do understand, but just disagree.
I think people would be rightfully offended at least somewhat either way. He is still objectifying women on the street and endangering himself, his wife, and everyone nearby. Perhaps if he had written “her” instead of “that”, some readers would think there is a small chance that he respected the woman as a person while having sex fantasies. Maybe he was also thinking about caring for her when she’s sick or raising kids or something. Maybe that small sliver of hope is enough to make you say, “you could have at least recognized that she is a person instead of a thing”.
Here is part of the original post with “her” instead of “that”:
I mean, I’m kind of curious about if you were really honest, walking down the street and you see any attractive women, how can you help your brain not automatically think “damn, I’d like to fuck the hell out of her”. Especially if they are dressed in some sort of risque, butt-cheeks hanging out, skinny tanned legs outfit.
And here is the followup post with “her” instead of “this”:
As a (horrid, to some) example, I was driving with my wife in our minivan, stopped at red light and this girl pulled up next to us on a scooter. The way she was sitting, the short shorts she was wearing, her body’s shape, I don’t know, I couldn’t even hold a conversation with my wife even when she was complaining about me being distracted by her… it’s like it didn’t matter to me, I couldn’t bypass it, I had to just take in the sight of her and I didn’t care how irritated my wife was. I know I sound like a real winner, but I’m just being honest.
When I read this, I have no doubt that nate sexually objectifies women - on purpose or not, he sees an attractive woman and dehumanizes her, he is captivated by her body and violates her in his mind. I dismiss any possibility that he thinks of a woman as a full person when imagining himself having sex with her; after the sex fantasy perhaps, but not during it. Therefore I disagree that there is a small advantage in saying “her” over “that”. For others, perhaps they really think if he had thought or written “her”, that might indicate a small possibility that he respects women.
That’s an explanation I would understand, though I might not agree with it.
~Max
Maybe I think about language differently than you do. I believe the meaning of the words in context take priority over their normal definitions or connotations. nate apparently thinks that way so I am a little hesitant to call him out in a thread about sharing his thoughts, not because he has a sexist mind or sexually objectifies women, but because he accurately relayed his thoughts.
~Max
The issue is that by deliberately breaking all conventions of English usage, he’s going out of his way to showcase that he objectifies her. We can parse the sentence, It’s not incidental objectification, the objectification is a substantive part of the experience for him and he is inviting his audience to share the thrill of making her into a thing.
I mean, I’m not saying that’s his conscious goal, but the phrase has currency among people who wallow in this sort of gratuitous objectification.
Actually yeah, I think he is still objectifying the woman as a tool to satisfy his own sexual desire. Ergo, even if he says or thinks or writes the word “she”, in the most primitive sense, while having his sexual fantasies he is mentally stripping the woman of personhood and using her as a personal mental sex toy.
~Max
You’ve got me all wrong, thorny locust. I don’t think using “that” as a demonstrative pronoun to refer to a person is appropriate. I am saying that when he writes “her”, it does not mean he is talking about a person. He is still dehumanizing the girl just as much as saying “that” would. In my opinion, in the context of the original post, “that” and “her” refer to the woman’s body, not her person.
That’s a totally different thing if I am driving people away from these boards… I’m not too concerned if people get tired of me or this particular thread. But if you think my participation is driving people away from the straight dope, if you really think that is true, I will stop.
~Max
I agree, so you and I are definitely miscommunicating. I accidentally used “she” in the post you quoted whereas I should have used “her”. I don’t think usage of “that” is OK, I think “her” is more just as offensive as “that” because even if we put “her” into the original post, the post still shows the exact same sexual objectification. As I understand it, this objectification is the offensive part of that sentence, so if it is still the same objectification with “her”, why would it be less offensive than using “that”?
~Max
Hmm. Could it be that some women are conditioned to be more offended by the word “that” then “her”, despite the semantic identity in the original post?
Sort of like a racial epithet coming from a white man versus a person of the disparaged race.
I feel awfully stupid now, and that makes a lot of sense.
~Max
Max.
There is a difference between ‘I disrespect this person’ and ‘I’m not even acknowledging that there is a person there.’
Your failure to understand that is not a failure on the part of the people who are finding both of these problems in the OP’s posts.
Then why did you include all that stuff in the spoilers?