Planetary Gender Theory

[browngirl]

(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?

Comments

[catalana.livejournal.com]

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.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

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

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

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

[catalana.livejournal.com]

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*

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

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.