Have you ever had a romantic or sexual relationship?
If so, did it ever occur to you that your partner was physically attractive?
If so, were you still able to think of them as a human being?
I think you’re supposed to say “Hubba Hubba.”
Did it occur to you that there’s a difference between how we interact with lovers and complete strangers?
Is second this. I have no idea how thinking someone is hot is objectifying them? If he had said something to his son about how they looked smart or kind, would people be up in arms about objectifying them as “just a brain” or “just a heart”?
Some people are really way too sensitive.
Of course. But Kaio’s remarks leave no room for that, that I can see. Perhaps we will see some clarification.
In any event, even with complete strangers, not all opinions about appearance are reductionist objectification.
Of course.
Well, it doesn’t help that the posters in this thread who are addressing the objectification won’t do anything more than simply call it such–especially colandar, who doesn’t seem to be capable of much more than crude and somewhat childish condescension.
The objectification relevant here pertains to the wider arena of language use in social discourse, and the role that such language use plays in reinforcing power relationships. The fact that the OP or his son found the women attractive is irrelevant. That’s just hormones. However, we need to be able to see the utterance of “sexy mommas”–the OP’s very first comment–as a particular kind of speech act that taps into larger dynamics. Effectively, he’s labeling them with a particular function when he does that–whether he means to or not–and it’s a function granted (or not granted) solely by the male. It has nothing to do with the OP’s intentions, or whether he’s a “good” or “bad” person. It’s about the larger social connection between language use and power relationships. But if you want to understand “objectification rhetoric,” you need to see that this is not about individuals, or individual intentions. The objectification happens whether they hear what he says or not, and whether they like what he says or not. And it’s not necessarily happening to them as individuals–though by their reaction they clearly felt it was.
There is a separate issue here of socialization, too, (between parent and child). A father (or a mother) can ingrain objectification of women in ways that don’t even involve language, though language is probably the most prevalent way.
That’s what I already clarified in post #83 above.
I’m pretty sure I haven’t used the word “objectification” in this thread, so probably you are mad at me about something else. Your “irony” distinction is an interesting question, but does not really apply to the scenario discussed in this thread.
I think she’s being perfectly clear. In the situation that the thread is all about i.e. - commenting on strangers (the women) in public for the purposes of bonding with someone else (the son).
He was not attempting to communicate with the women, they were objects he was commenting on rather than people he was communicating with. A good paintjob on a car would have served as well, and would be less likely to care.
If the person being commented on is not included in the conversation, or their opinion is not considered valid, they’re being objectified. Some people *object *(heh) to this more than others.
Guizot,
Thanks for the non-venting, reasoned reply.
I can see how using the OP’s expression* would label those women with a particular function. What I do not see if how labeling them with a particular function is tantamount to a denial of all human aspects of those individuals. Focus on A is not denial of B.
Now, if someone wants to make the case that there’s too much emphasis on women’s looks and sexuality and not enough on other aspects, I agree. Perhaps this thread I started could benefit from your nuanced analysis? Women: What are the psychological effects of overemphasis on women's looks and sexuality? - In My Humble Opinion - Straight Dope Message Board
- Which I’d never use and won’t argue in favor of.
You don’t need to use the word itself–it’s the subtext of your argument, which is a valid one, but it might get through to the OP more effectively with a different tact.
Personally, I don’t think it is tantamount. It only approaches that to the degree that other aspects of society and specific conditions will let it. Women can take on their own agency in various ways, depending on circumstances.
Wow, my first post deconstruction! I’ll need to buy some better shoes.
Uh, why not? Especially since I find my SO attractive in large part because I like him as a human being.
What guizot said, basically. The social dynamics of our culture are impossible to escape. I’d also add that on an individual level, there’s a difference between an attraction which makes you wish to get to know someone better, and one which makes you wish to comment on their appearance without actually engaging in a conversation. The latter is an indication that your expectation is that the attractive person is there for you to gawp at and take your visual jollies from, rather than an recognition that this is FIRST a human being, and SECOND one who happens to be attractive.
In other words, a recognition of the fact that a person has complex layers, rather than being one-dimensional in the way you find most pleasing. It would be creepy if someone got stuck on “You’re really good at math” as the only dimension of me that they recognized, too. The main difference is that, given our cultural history, it would take me longer to figure out that “math” was the only thing he saw in me.
So, in this situation, had Shakes noticed an attractive woman, and because of that decided to walk over and strike up some small talk, that would be a non-objectifying recognition of attractiveness. Instead, he catcalled. There was no indication that he recognized or was interested in their other layers of character.
I personally don’t use the word “objectification” to mean an object whose sole purpose is providing sexual pleasure. Treating someone like their sole purpose is to provide sexual pleasure is just one form of objectification. You can objectify people in many other ways, and not all of them are bad.
I like Sartre’s definition of objectification. An object cannot create meaning. It must get its meaning from a person. A person can create meaning for objects and for herself. We objectify a person when we behave like the meaning we give her is her only meaning - ignoring that she can create meaning for herself. When we ignore someone else’s meaning-creating ability, we are essentially treating them like objects because objects can’t create their own meaning.
By calling a woman a “sexy momma” the OP was defining her in a way she did not want to be defined. She defines herself as much more than her looks. There was conflict there and the OP did not take into account her side of it before he spoke out.
You can argue that the objectification was harmless, or not as bad as some other forms of objectification, but I think the using the term “objectification” to describe his behavior is perfectly accurate.
I don’t understand what is so hard to comprehend, women would like to be able to walk around without hearing how bad you’d want to fuck them. Doing it with your kid is a million times worse because it just reminds them their daughters will someday have to hear how bad asshole jr wants to fuck them also.
Shame on you, Shakes! Shame! Shame! Shame!
Jk : )
In my experience, as a 100-lb woman who nonetheless comports herself with a lot of confidence and generally finds it easy to mold other’s behavior with my own actions: confronting them with aggression escalated the bad behavior, sometimes to a scary and dangerous level. While acknowledging it (with eye contact) and dismissing it (by not engaging them positively or negatively), takes the wind right out of their sails. I’ve been experimenting with this for 10 years; but it’s JMHO. YMMV. Etc.
Your average dude who screams things at strange woman on the street is not going to feel ‘unsafe’ in any way if said woman screams back.
Aren’t you doing a little bit of conflating here? Who said anything to any woman anywhere in this thread about how badly they wanted to fuck them? “Hot mama” is commenting on that woman’s attractiveness, not on the level of desire one has to fuck that woman. It’s still inappropriate but not what you are describing it as here.
But that wasn’t the situation. The situation was his son nudging him about a couple of attractive women.
No he didn’t. He unintelligently responded to his son loudly enough to be overheard by the women.
I believe it was inappropriate, and I think the woman responded very well. She rightly embarrassed him. I don’t interact with my 19 yo son (or my 26 yo daughter) on sexual matters in that way, but I don’t think what he did was that terrible. I hope it (and this thread) was an educational experience for both Shakes and his son. I would consider it a positive experience for them if they do, especially because the women don’t seem to have been hurt, but rather handled putting someone in their place very effectively. They probably had a good laugh between them seeing how apologetic, embarrassed and flustered he was because of their very sharp retort. Well done on their part.
If it had been two other women, not as assertive or confident, it would have been worse, of course, but we’re discussing this circumstance. This lesson should preclude the possibility of that happening in the future though, which is a good thing.