browngirl | Planetary Gender Theory

Current Mood: curious

Planetary Gender Theory

(Aka, men are from Mars, women are from Venus, and right now I feel like a visitor from another planet.)

This is going to take as much introduction as a Simpsons episode; bear with me.

Over in the comic book fandom I'm involved with Project Girl.Wonder, an effort to gain recognition/a memorial for a particular character (Stephanie Brown) and generally to combat sexism in comics.

This has, unsurprisingly, led to rather a few debates.

In one of the many ones, I saw this particular [to me, bogglesome] statement: "Objectification of women isn't wrong because without objectification the human race wouldn't exist, because objectification is necessary for men to be sexually attracted to women and therefore have sex."

This reminds me of the time on the PolyBoston Mailing List when Thud and cohorts argued that rape would be justified to preserve the human race and therefore couldn't be universally condemned. But, I digress.

I realized that one of the reasons I found this statement objectionable is that I found it confusing; this is completely not how my experience of sexual attraction works. The more attracted to someone I am the more singular they appear in my mind, the more unique attributes of theirs I notice. (Needless to say, I also found it horrifying, but be that as it may.)

But, it strikes me, I could be being a girl about this. And reality is what it is, whether we would it be so or not.

So, what do people think? Is attraction bound up in objectification for men? Is it necessary to see a woman as solely a collection of her sexual parts to be sexually attracted to her?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Um, definitely not in my opinion. Of course, I have the same "problem" you do on this - I'm female, so I shouldn't speak for the men and their perceptions. *shrug*

*laugh* I mean, at first I was going to roll my eyes and dismiss him as beiing of limited imagination, but then I thought it might make a discussion question of interest.

So, what do people think? Is attraction bound up in objectification for men? Is it necessary to see a woman as solely a collection of her sexual parts to be sexually attracted to her?

Not for me.

Well, yeah, but I have faith in you. :)

Okay, looking at it just from a rhetoric standpoint, everything is hinging on how you and the person who wrote that statement each define "objectification".

In my view, aesthetic appreciation of a human being's body (be that person male or female) is different from reducing their essence to nothing more than a collection of holes to receive (or deliver) semen.

I don't think there's anything wrong with admiring someone's body. But I think there's a lot wrong with disrespecting someone's essential humanity.

I think it also says a lot about the guys' self-esteem if they're claiming the only way the species would continue is if they raped the surviving women. If they believe no women could ever willingly choose them, then they do definitely have a problem.

Actually, that's something I'd love to see more of in comics -- women choosing to love men and men feeling loved and able to love in return. Confidence in one's lovability is sexy.

Okay, looking at it just from a rhetoric standpoint, everything is hinging on how you and the person who wrote that statement each define "objectification".

Good point. If one person means "a fruit" and another means "a color" when they're discussing the term "orange" they may both end up confused. In context, though, I think he was using the commonly held meaning of objectification, to make a person into an object, with the attendant connotations of *reducing* them to an object. So I feel justified in being slightly disparaging of him.

I think it also says a lot about the guys' self-esteem if they're claiming the only way the species would continue is if they raped the surviving women. If they believe no women could ever willingly choose them, then they do definitely have a problem.

Oh, that was from another discussion, from awhile ago, but a similarly fun one.

Actually, that's something I'd love to see more of in comics -- women choosing to love men and men feeling loved and able to love in return. Confidence in one's lovability is sexy.

AMEN!

I can see "confidence in one's lovability is sexy" only to the extent of being the inverse of "desperation is a turn-off", and even then only by squinting; there are many kinds of surety of being lovable that are really obnoxious, and while I am at the point where I can have faith in being loved by specific people who do love me, which is a very wonderful thing, going from those specific cases to a more general confidence in being lovable is not something my brain seems wired for.

Maybe it's the context thing again? Because the way I read "Confidence in one's lovability is sexy" is in the good sense of "believing that one is potentially lovable and specifically loved by those who have made it clear that they honestly do love one, is sexy". Not in a "yay, arrogance!" sense.

Also, I am giggling uncontrollably, at this point. *giggles very much*

I think it also says a lot about the guys' self-esteem if they're claiming the only way the species would continue is if they raped the surviving women.

Not actually a species I'd want to see survive in that case, tbh.

Eh. I'm perfectly capable of admiring the aesthetics of a pretty girl, but I wouldn't sleep with her unless she actually sparks my mind. See my recent LJ post on the subject. (http://autographedcat.livejournal.com/176227.html) On the other hand, it's been pointed out to me many times that I am hardly typical of most men's attitudes.

Truth is, men *do* tend to be a bit more visually oriented that women, on average. But, like all things that are measured on average, there's a lot of outliers in both directions, and one should be careful what conclusions one draws from it.

Well said, all. *smooches you on cheek*

sageness said, there may be some difference in definition of "objectification," though I'd have hoped that by now most men realized that "admiring a woman's appearance" is not the same thing as objectifying her.

The speaker also seems to have too narrow a view of male sexuality; the simplest answer to that claim, other than asking what he means by "objectification," might be to point out that he's one man, not all men. The snarkiest would be to suggest that we could continue the species by handing men like him porn magazines, collect sperm donations, and let women who want babies use the donated sperm.

And what got left out of that comment, though it was meant to be the second paragraph, is a discussion I had with a male lover, who said that he couldn't (and didn't particularly want to) separate his attraction to me into components, one or more of which would be physical attributes and the others of which would be personality.

There is a world of difference between, say,

cattitude watching me happily while I stretch, which I sometimes do naked, and someone ogling a stranger on the street and making sure she (or he) is aware of that.

There is a world of difference between, say, cattitude watching me happily while I stretch, which I sometimes do naked, and someone ogling a stranger on the street and making sure she (or he) is aware of that.

Very true, but then, everything you've said is well said. I suppose I could give the original speaker the benefit of the doubt, that he's using some meaning of "objectification" that I'm not, but I'm not sure I feel like it. *smile*

It smells as if it could fertilize a garden wonderfully.

I LOVE to look at women; it's one of my favorite pastimes. After we've met, though, I'm dealing with more than just her physical appearance, and all of that weighs in on my reactions to her. (I assure you, there are a number of women considered physically attractive in our society whom I'd pass by for a chance to spend time with others whose appearance is less physically attractive -- but whom I'd call "beautiful".)

[Slightly edited for content]

*laugh* That's a good way of putting it.

I didn't think, until I read

cornute's reply, that I had to say this explicitly, but I figure I should: thinking women are pretty is *perfectly fine*. I do it myself, and I like being looked at, in the right contexts. I was both scornful and disbelieving of the original commenter's assertion that to do so required discounting everything else about the woman. I'm pretty pleased that so are all my respondents.

I am attracted to individuals , to full persons. You may be being a girl in that that it would take a man to come up with such a stupid idea.

I second redaxe's comment - my definition of beautiful & attractive includes the mind.

I may be untypical though.

*grins at you*

Apropos of nothing, that's an *adorable* baby in your icon.

well 50 years ago , give or take .. ( here is another one 'communication' - the other was 'question')

On my way home tonight - using the half brain that was not busy watching traffic ( I was riding my bicycle ) I came up with a thought : what if that tendency of men to be more visual is balanced by the tendency of women to go for 'inner' values. ( fo shuh some mighty ugly men do get laid ) - the result for whole population might be a healthy mix. Since it has been argued that some 'beauty' characteristics are markers for survival talent selecting for those would make evolutionary sense - otoh a working brain is a survival tool too so should be selected for. having both selection mechanisms in the total population just might be the right mix. ( just like in investment it may make sense to spread the portfolio a bit invest some in blue chip, some in risk, some in fixed but guaranteed some in ... )

Not that I want those male/female traits to be inherited, hardwired things - I rather want to decide myself how to behave and not be driven by automatic. ( unfortunately that does not change the possible truth of it.)
Also I thought up a beautiful research project: the dependency of beauty ideals on the living conditions ( roughly: "is the perceived change to the slim 'twiggy' ideal a collective response to being more in danger of overfeeding than of going hungry ?" )

Well, that's interesting. I would think that a guy looking at a woman who attracted him would want to get to know THAT particular person and be intrigued, rather than seeing her as a set of walking body parts he could masturbate into.

Maybe he doesn't have much of a chance to meet women? If that's his approach to life, I wouldn't be surprised.

But, hey, I'm not a guy either...

Maybe he doesn't have much of a chance to meet women? If that's his approach to life, I wouldn't be surprised.

*must resist urge to psychoanalyze over the 'Net*

*grins at you instead*

*snickers back*

"Is it necessary to see a woman as solely a collection of her sexual parts to be sexually attracted to her?"

No.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Oh, and hug your daughter for me? :)

I will indeed.

I can aesthetically appreciate strangers, but I only get attracted to people I know.

Thank you for saving me the trouble of figuring out how to phrase that.

Apropos of naught, hi!

When I posted this I said to myself, "I can't wait to see what

rysmiel says about this", and you did not disappoint. *hugs your knees*

I'm not that much taller than you...

Seriously, this is a way my brain is wired that I think of as at the level of orientation; that it leads naturally to behaving in ways I find ethically congenial is a pleasing result rather than a root cause.

Oh, *Well* said!

Gessi

Most men I've talked to appreciate how women look, but they wouldn't stay with women unless there's something appealing about their personality/intellect. And while I suppose this person could be claiming that the continuation of the human species is contingent on one-night stands, it's a pretty stupid thing to claim. Babies are a lot of work; from a biological standpoint, it makes more sense to have two caregivers (or one caregiver and one provider) - and that doesn't happen from one-night stands, in general.

Yeah, there's this too. As I said to a friend recently, people aren't trouts, you know?

Oh yes. And I'm glad we get to live in a world with both, because trout are delicious.

What? They aren't?! There goes that idea for a dissertation:

"Trouts and Humans: A Philosophical Consideration of Our Essential Sameness"

Oh, wait; I already have a dissertation. Must be time to foist this off on some hapless student...*grin*

There are times when I think that a lot of what ails Western society in general these days may stem from thinking two caregivers are enough; I'm at a point right now where a lot of my co-workers have small kids, and the more I see of the stress that it puts them under, combined with my experience of fostering a sixteen-month-old for six weeks* in a house with one other adult, the more I think that, while you're dead right that two caregivers are better than one, three or four would be a much more sensible minimum in practice.

*All right, all right. She was sixteen months old at the beginning of the six weeks.

I saw the most perfect ass in the world about a week ago.

I was at Wal-Mart, and she walked in in front of me, wearing close-fitting jeans and a crop top, and not only was her ass very nicely shaped, the way it moved when she walked just about made my eyes water with its perfection. I spent less than 6 seconds watching her, and I don't believe I'll ever see a nicer ass in the next 10 years, even if I get a job evaluating finished airbrush jobs for lingerie models. It was just that good.

However, I'd like to mention two things.

1. At no point was I COMPELLED by the perfection of her ass to do anything. I didn't talk to her, I didn't approach her in any way or leer. Had I felt less than comfortable about watching her ass and appreciating it privately (and, uh, publicly here, I guess) I could have looked away at any moment.

2. Imagine she turned around and I'd recognized her. Or, say, a week later I'd met her at a friend's house. (I likely wouldn't have known her, since I wasn't looking at her face, but let's pretend I did.) I'd still be perfectly capable of getting to know her as a person, and the fact that for six seconds, I admired her Most Perfect Ass in the World would be a very small part of all the things I knew about her.

I think that it's ridiculous to demand that someone be attracted to you sexually without appreciating your sexual parts-- if they liked you as a radio announcer, would you demand they do so without appreciating your voice? If they liked you as an actor, would you demand they not enjoy the expressions on your face? And the phrase "solely a collection of her sexual parts" doesn't give men nearly enough credit-- like other people, men are just as capable of appreciating a person for what that person thinks and does, not just their nice rack. It just so happens that when one person likes another person sexually, they also like that person's parts.

I saw the most perfect ass in the world about a week ago.

Sancho Panza's ?

OK, my last try at a reply was rather snippier than it should have been, if I want to maximize the light and minimize the heat in this discussion. Let me try again.

I think that it's ridiculous to demand that someone be attracted to you sexually without appreciating your sexual parts-- if they liked you as a radio announcer, would you demand they do so without appreciating your voice?

Now this was one of the main reasons my first reply to you was so snippy. I do not and would not demand that someone be attracted to me sexually without appreciating my sexual parts. Nor do I think, on rereading my entry, that what I said implied that. What I *was* doing was stating both my disdain of and my confusion with the idea that someone would necessarily have to appreciate only my or any woman's sexual parts/aspects/whatnot to appreciate her sexually.

As somewhat of an aside, it really does seem that discussions of sexism often end up being framed this way, where one side complains of what could be called "too much of a good thing" and the other side accuses them of wanting to do away with the good thing entirely. Such as here. Not wanting to be appreciated solely and only as something pretty doesn't mean I don't want being pretty to be among my characteristics; its being among my characteristics is not the same as it being said that it's my only characteristic.

I owe the word "characteristic" overtime pay. Anyway, onward.

And the phrase "solely a collection of her sexual parts" doesn't give men nearly enough credit-- like other people, men are just as capable of appreciating a person for what that person thinks and does, not just their nice rack.

This is reassuring, however hotly stated. The person who made the statement that this post is in response to said, in essence, that men were *not* capable of appreciating a person for what that person thinks and does, and it's been nice seeing my impression that said person is wrong confirmed by all my respondents.

It just so happens that when one person likes another person sexually, they also like that person's parts.

And to conclude, are you trying for condescention here? Because this line was the other main reason my first reply was so snippy.

"I do not and would not demand that someone be attracted to me sexually without appreciating my sexual parts. Nor do I think, on rereading my entry, that what I said implied that."

I read your post as explaining a certain opinion of some people, not as being an opinion of your own. I was responding to your explanation of some people's opinion, not aiming it at you personally.

"Not wanting to be appreciated solely and only as something pretty doesn't mean I don't want being pretty to be among my characteristics; its being among my characteristics is not the same as it being said that it's my only characteristic."

And that's a good representation of the view I share, in different words.

"And to conclude, are you trying for condescention here?"

No, I think that's a line that I rewrote and forgot to edit out, because your post was so interesting that I replied immediately before going to sleep. I'll be more careful in future. (And, well, what possible reason would I have to condescend to you? I read your stuff because I think you're a neat person, not because I'm looking for something to snipe.)

Before going to sleep? Oh, man, are you on a night schedule? I remember those.

I also came home slightly scattered. So, a more on-topic reply, mediated by El Joshlet:

And, well, what possible reason would I have to condescend to you? I read your stuff because I think you're a neat person, not because I'm looking for something to snipe.

OK, then. I misread you, and I do apologize. Here, have some Chocolate of Conciliation. :)

After all this I'm tempted to go find that discussion again and tell the guy what I think of his sociobiology, but it's probably just as well that I don't.

"OK, then. I misread you, and I do apologize. Here, have some Chocolate of Conciliation. :)"

Yay! ...Blue Bell makes "Banana Split" ice cream with chocolate swirls and real frozen banana slices. It'd be awesome with more chocolate!

So, what do people think? Is attraction bound up in objectification for men? Is it necessary to see a woman as solely a collection of her sexual parts to be sexually attracted to her?

I think some people are idiots. Unfortunately, some of the idiots do objectify women. That said, it is not necessary to see a woman as solely a collection of her sexual parts to be sexually attracted to her.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, but confirmation is always good. :)

I don't think so. I think the more evolved of the species can appreciate physical characteristics without objectifying.

Or at least not the wilfully de-evolved. *nod*

I apologize for sort of popping in like this - first, this is a very interesting discussion (and also being female I'm both boggled by the quoted sentiment and a bit unqualified to answer your question), but I did a massive double-take at your icon as I started to click away. Seshat! What a wonderful icon! For whatever reason that really made me smile.

I'm also over on Girl-Wonder. The discussions have been incredibly interesting, but sometimes disheartening on one end. (Especially the very early Girls Read Comics! (And They're Pissed) responses. Eegh.)

Oh, goodness, no apology necessary! And Seshat is such a cool goddess, isn't she? Literacy deserves deification. :)

And, yay, Girl Wonder! If I weren't using my Seshat icon I'd use my Steph icon. Many of the replies have been disheartening, but snarking is always a good way to not lose heart. :)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Planetary Gender Theory

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

joining the choir

Re: joining the choir

*adorable* baby

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Take 2

Re: Take 2

Re: Take 2

Re: Take 2

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

adorable baby