Blogger is shocked that women are treated as objects

wait, no. I’m not shocked at all.

If you are naked at all, and a woman, it is only for the purpose of sex and men.

so many commenters on this Even the title of article lets us know that, silly women, don’t you know breasts are for men?

I doubt the women were “shocked” that men wanted watch them. They were making a point. Women cannot safely walk down the streets with the same rights as a man.

on woman say “We should be able to walk down the street and not have this many men taking pictures of us.”

I agree. Commenters of course say, “be realistic.” It is comepletely unrealistic to hope for equality. maybe it is, but I think that is too fatalistic. They are also accused of being “hypocritical biotches” because they are only doing it to get attention! (those slutty slut sluts).

It is not right that women may get naked for men. That his is acceptable and the only way for women to get naked. Why are we not allowed to be naked for ourselves? because it is hot? because we don’t like tan lines? because at that moment my shirt is tugging all weird like and the tag is itching me and I want to take it off?

but that’s right. either we are wrongfully distributing the property of one man, or we are now the property of all men. Yeah. I know, this isn’t shocking either. what’s it called again when men feel complete entitlement to women’s bodies? oh yeah… RAPE CULTURE

headdesk.

monkey’s, porn and consent

Yesterday a(nother) liberal dood I know wanted to share how science totally rocks.  his evidence is that a study was done that shows monkey’s like porn and he read about it on the internet. now I don’t know if he read about it at ABC, but I figured if I was going to rant about it, I should look up an article about it.

Then he got really upset that i thought it was horrible. Later he even sent me an email along the lines of, “but I’m a nice guy why do you think I’m a horrible person?” Which makes the issue, not about my reaction to porn, not about rape culture, not about animal captivity, but about poor him and his feelings. Because my feelings hurt his feelings and that is so mean.

This means that I now I have to spend my time letting him know I don’t think he is a horrible person. Well I have to do this if i want to keep the peace. And I do want to keep the peace since I work with him, and we rely on each other to help each other out when studying, and things like that. GRRRR.

But on to the monkeys. First, the article is about how “The study is the first to show that monkeys appraise visual information for its social value and can then use this data to spontaneously discriminate between images of their fellow monkeys.”

but just like with humans the scientists understood “monkeys” to mean MALE BODIED monkeys.

Twelve adult male rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) participated in the study

so already there was bias. that female bodied monkey’s don’t count and we don’t need to see how they think since they are the “other sex” anyway.

The monkey’s were given headshots of both males and females, and hindquarters of females to look at. The article does not discuss how the monkeys responded to headshots of the females. but high social ranking males and female hindquarters were “paid for” more often.

Did they pay for headshots of the women too? would they pay for hindquarter shots of the socially high ranking males? how do we know that “sexiness” of the picture had anything to do with it? Maybe social desirability of the subject was important regardless of the position of the monkey in the camera frame. (not to mention that heteronormative assumptions are made about all subjects in the test).  So again, bias about how humans (i.e. heterosexual male humans) view naked pictures comes into how the experiment was organised, and how the data is interpreted:

Camerer says it is “no surprise” that male monkeys “really like looking at female posteriors”. But he is puzzled that males would pay with juice to see high-status males, but would not look at them for very long.

so already we can see this is a problematic study, immersed in patriarchal structure. feminsiting has a post today about science being used to objectify (human) women.

But what about the monkeys? they were “housed in captivity”.  And someone tells me about this study and expects me to be thrilled because no monkey’s were “physically harmed”(quote from self proclaimed nice guy)? Um… vegan here, I’m for autonomy of creatures. that means I’m against captive animals as a slave class for experimentation, regardless of the nature of the experiment.

And onto the issue of consent. This is the biggest issue involved. I don’t know about you, but If I was hanging around and people took pictures of my genitals and butt, and then sold it as porn to someone else, I’d feel angry and violated. But we can do that to monkeys, and its no big deal. More specifically, we can do that to FEMALE BODIED monkeys and it is  SCIENCE.

But you know what? People do this to FEMALE BODIED PEOPLE too. and there is no recourse. If I’m at a nude beach, and someone takes a picture to use as porn, that’s sick right? but shit like this happens, and it is legal, since I’m in a public place. CREEPY. Even if it were illegal, I can’t go to the cops. That could close down the beach, and everyone would “know” its my own fault, and really I wanted it anyway because otherwise I wouldn’t have been naked and teasing men with my nudity.

so this whole taking pornographic pictures without consent issue is both personal and political.

Just more evidence that female bodies are the bodies of the sex class. To be used by men, for sex and porn whenever they want to.  Whether it is male scientists using female monkey bodies to observe monkey objectification, or male monkeys paying to view female bodies as a commodity. Or if it is male humans jerking off in public at a female body who is minding her business and just wants to enjoy the beach. Female bodies are only good for sexual gratification of men and to hell with what women think about it.  Guess what that looks like to me: rape culture.

but you know, getting upset about this hurts the feelings of all those liberal nice guys who really do respect women “both as a group and as individuals”, but who still find this study awesome. /snark.

I’m still having trouble with not feeding the trolls

I haven’t written in ages and I still managed to get harassment as a comment on this old post.  The following is from rantfm:

You sound like a typical man hater with too many issues to deal with! You failed to mention that the same situations (men staring at women) happen in “clothed situations” ala the grocery store or in a city square. I’ll bet you never really had a boy friend growing up and you have built in issues with men.

What a shame! Now you want a seperate beach so we don’t have to see your ass? Let me know where it is and I’ll be sure to avoid you!

It still stings you know? Like I feel like I want to argue with the individual, but I know it is not worth my time. I want to point out the logical inconsistencies and defend my HAWTNESS. because even though I don’t want to be judged on my appearance I’m still a product of my culture and have an emotional want to to still be fuckable and attractive.

Fuck you society for twisting my brain.

I also don’t want to spend even MORE hours of my life telling everyone that I am not actually a man hater. (SHOCK! HORROR!) So the message below will have to do.

" I don't hate ALL MEN, just you.

" I don't hate ALL MEN, just you.

Because really, why do I want to convince people who don’t respect me that I don’t hate them. If i met them in real life it is quite possible that I WOULD hate them, or at least not want to talk to them ever.

I couldn’t possibly have seen evidence of rape culture, because the patriarchy tells me it doesn’t exist

I passed this greeting card in a shop today.

Because rape is funny. right? and when a man rapes his wife it’s ok. She doesn’t have the right to say no, so it’s not really crime. Because women are objects to be used.

I want to rant, but the picture speaks for itself, and I’m so angry I don’t know where to start.

EDIT:

It is apparently not self evident.  Lets describe what I see happening in the picture.  The wife is frowning, sort of in disgust.  She says, “Oh God– He found the viagra.”

This implies that he is now up for it, and she is disgusted by it.  But the undercurrent is that She’s going to have sex with him.  She doesn’t really want to, but it’s expected, so she will.  It’s an annoyance to have sex when you don’t want to.  It’s also called rape.

Published in: on May 25, 2008 at 7:11 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , ,

Is objectification the same as oppression?

This is a real question I’m posing to the universe.  This is a thinking out loud type post so comments are truly appreciated.  Dissenters welcome, as long as you are respectful.

 Perhaps it could be better stated as: Is objectification always a type of, or symptom of,  oppression?

 I would say that objectification of women as a class is oppressive.  That is to say viewing all women as merely objects, yes oppressive.  (or anyone in power viewing any group as objects for that matter.)   But what if you are walking down the street and notice a woman and you find her really attractive.  You are never going to meet this person.  You’re not hollering cat calls at this person, but you think to yourself, “wow, hot.”  Or maybe even remark to a friend that sentiment. 

 Is this oppressive to that person?  Is it even really objectifying them if your behaviors are not changed toward this person? 

Now really I’m asking because I want equality, and I want to check out guys.  Am I objectifying them?  Is the only thing that keeps me from being an oppressor my status as a disenfranchised individual? 

 Because if that’s so, that’s not who I want to be. 

 Should we totally turn off our hormonal reactions?  I would say that is impractical and silly.  I don’t think checking some one out because they are physically attractive is wrong.  I do think that basing all judgments on a person’s physical attributes is wrong. 

 I think the big difference is that, if you do meet or talk to that person, you acknowledge them as that: a person, and not just pretty thing to look at. 

But to say that one leads to the other is the same old anti-pot argument I dislike.  People who do heroin generally started with something like pot, so pot is an evil gateway drug.  I bet a lot of people who use heroin also ate popcorn at some point in their life.  And there exist a lot of people who use pot and don’t use harder drugs. 

I think the same could be said about checking people out.  Of course I may just be trying to rationalise my own behavior.