Feminism redux - please read first post of thread

[brook]

Yes, but are you as bothered by Olyver as you would be if it was happening to Ros? Well, not as bothered, that's perhaps unrealistic, but on a principled level do you find it the same (putting aside the frequency of one form of objectification compared to another which would affect your practical reaction)? And if so, why? Because your post lays out the situation without definitively landing on one side.

You talk about internalized ideas being harmful but are men going to absorb the treatment of Olyver and be harmed? If so, how? Greater anxiety about their bodies? :dunno:

Will men internalise it? Probably yes, and certainly body issues in men is also an issue.

I don't think the problem is currently the same because I don't think men are objectified anywhere near as much, or in the same way, as women in media or in society. Men are allowed to see themselves primarily as people *with* bodies, in society women are frequently conditioned to see the body as the first and most important factor that determines their worth.

I don't think any one isolated example is bad, it's a cumulative effect. In terms of game of thrones as an isolated example I'm not especially bothered by either Olyver or naked brother worker #8940, I would be a lot more bothered if the majority of characters of either sex were presented in the same way.

[brook]

An interesting discussion I got into on another forum: Is a man calling himself a feminist sexist because it is men trying to dominate a movement that women established and fought for themselves? Is calling yourself a supporter of feminism vs. calling yourself a feminist different?

Personally I welcome any man who wishes to call himself a feminist and I wish there were more, I understand why some don't feel comfortable with the label though and that's also fine with me.

I think a man who calls himself a feminist and then tries to lecture about how women are doing feminism wrong is being sexist (which doesn't mean it's not ok to disagree one some issues, its not like there isn't disagreement within feminist groups).

[sologdin]

objectification in itself doesn't seem like a useful concept. all exterior things are objects of consciousness, of knowledge, whereas the knowing mind is the subject. it is probably impossible not to objectify an exteriority, if it is to be known at all. it is basically a grammatical concept adopted by philosophy as a metaphor, then popularized by some forms of gender theory.

if by contrast it is an objection to certain economic exploitations, we have a very diffetent and more supple rhetoric in marxism to examine it. if on other hand it is meant that persons are treated as means rather than ends in themselves, we have the peerless language of kantian critique for that.

[jarl the climber]

An interesting discussion I got into on another forum: Is a man calling himself a feminist sexist because it is men trying to dominate a movement that women established and fought for themselves? Is calling yourself a supporter of feminism vs. calling yourself a feminist different?

Is that what a man is doing by being a feminist, taking over? Suppose your a man and in a relationship with a woman and you get into the issue so you can understand her viewpoint better, the relationship is important to you and its a way to reach out to her, is that wrong? Or lets say you get involved because its a good way to meet women? Personally I would want to go to a feminist discussion group and be the only man there, I would feel like I was intruding. I'm sort of neutral about it while recognizing that the ladies kind of need their own space to vent and talk about things without the men prying into things, that doesn't mean I agree with them, half the time I'm not even really sure what their talking about, but I think they have the right to formulate their own opinions and from their point of view they are sure to get some feedback from the guys whether they really want it or not, its not like they exist in a vacumn.

I'd also say that calling yourself anything without backing it up with action is really sort of meaningless.

[jarl the climber]

Will men internalise it? Probably yes, and certainly body issues in men is also an issue.

I don't think the problem is currently the same because I don't think men are objectified anywhere near as much, or in the same way, as women in media or in society. Men are allowed to see themselves primarily as people *with* bodies, in society women are frequently conditioned to see the body as the first and most important factor that determines their worth.

I don't think any one isolated example is bad, it's a cumulative effect. In terms of game of thrones as an isolated example I'm not especially bothered by either Olyver or naked brother worker #8940, I would be a lot more bothered if the majority of characters of either sex were presented in the same way.

I'm curious, how do women fell as individuals ;) , do you want to see men objectified the way woman are? I'm also curious if there is an generational gap. I see some differences between the women of my generation and the younger ones, I see people here refer to it, do they have a different view on this, my take is that women from my generation are a little more conservative and traditional on average.

[brook]

Any question that starts with 'do women...' is not really going to be answerable

But this woman does not

[karaddin]

I'm a lesbian so perhaps a little less relevant, but I'd still vote sexualised like the viper, not objectified like Olyver. I'd say True Blood also tends to mostly be good with this, there is an awful lot of eye candy regardless of what you are into (and I don't just mean men vs women, but even within those there is good variety, Bill vs Eric vs Sam vs Alcide...all different types and all appreciated by different tastes) but for the most part they stick to this eye candy being actual main characters that have their own roles within the plot instead of it being random characters only depicted as sex objects. There are some exceptions to this though and I'm pretty sure they are all women (probably all girlfriends of Jason in fact!).

ETA: While it's not a gender thing, I will say True Blood could do with some more racial diversity in this respect, for the most part it covers a variety of white but outside of Tara that's largely it apart from an earlier season.

ETA2: Although I guess there was Luna as well. I may just be forgetting some if there are others, there is an awful lot I appreciate on the show >_<

[emberling]

(Got a phone call while writing this, cross-posting with a bunch of stuff...)

On objectifying the men too - it depends on what medium you're talking about.

If you're talking about prose fiction - okay, but fuck, I'm not sure I've ever heard someone decrying objectification in prose fiction. Maybe in decades-old prose fiction. Usually the criticism is just flat/boring/poor characterization of women, which is not something we want to embrace and bring over to men; or it's tropes, which is a different thing. And, um, the largest-selling genre of novels is essentially devoted to female-gaze objectification of men, so...

Usually discussions about objectification are about something more visual. Like this. (giggle)

In the visual sense, there's a bunch of problems with just objectify the men too!:

- There's two main components of visual-media objectification of women: exaggerated and overexposed sex traits, and unnatural/impossible poses designed to show off sex traits at the expense of character traits. Traditionally visually-objectified men (e.g. romance covers) will be the former but not the latter. The trouble is that men are sexualized in dominant poses (generally meshing with characterization) while women are sexualized in awkward, submissive, or ridiculous poses (often clashing with characterization). The previous link demonstrates how goofy those poses look on men. (Which, again, is fine if goofy is what you're going for. Which is not the case for many of these eschergirls.)

- In some market segments (games) objectified women are near-universal. With a few notable exceptions (Skyrim) you know that a bunch of those alleged suits of plate mail are going to turn out to be bikinis. If not all of them. (Let's not speak of TERA, where they're more likely to be pasties.) Objectifying nearly all the men in retaliation just would make games look immature and ridiculous. The existing objectification already tends to do this; it's one of the reasons we want it to stop being the default.

- Nobody wants mutually assured objectification. Homophobic bros play a lot of games; they don't want to see that shit. Women don't generally ask for equal access to gratuitous eye candy; we ask for characters that better represent us, that don't caricature us. The only people I ever see suggesting it are a subset of the same hetero men toward whom the status quo already caters. It's a shit imitation of a solution. It's the split baby kind of fairness, conceding something of your own to prevent us from getting what we actually want.

Compare het-female-gaze objectification (romance hero) to het-male-gaze objectification (congratulations sir knight, you have won the princess's hand in marriage). Equal titillation does not result in equal verisimilitude, equal agency, or equal depth of character.

btw- this is the kind of not objectified most of us want. Some very fine ladies on there. It's not about avoiding sexy; it's about not being comically oversexed.

[1918me]

An interesting discussion I got into on another forum: Is a man calling himself a feminist sexist because it is men trying to dominate a movement that women established and fought for themselves? Is calling yourself a supporter of feminism vs. calling yourself a feminist different?

On the former question:

Typically no, a man calling himself a feminist is a great thing that I think the movement could use more of, as (as I've asserted before) I think the more people feel comfortable calling themselves feminists, the more accepted the movement as a whole will become, and the fewer people will be ignorant of what it actually entails.

On the latter question:

Frankly, I don't see a practical difference between calling yourself a supporter of feminism vs. a feminist, other than the former seems like you believe in the cause of feminism, but you want to avoid the label because you think it carries a negative connotation or something. I actually get annoyed when people say they "support feminism," but refuse to call themselves feminists, because I think they perpetuate the idea that being a feminist is some kind of sweeping ideological statement that should be avoided. It really isn't.

[Dany's Silver]

On the former question:

Typically no, a man calling himself a feminist is a great thing that I think the movement could use more of, as (as I've asserted before) I think the more people feel comfortable calling themselves feminists, the more accepted the movement as a whole will become, and the fewer people will be ignorant of what it actually entails.

On the latter question:

Frankly, I don't see a practical difference between calling yourself a supporter of feminism vs. a feminist, other than the former seems like you believe in the cause of feminism, but you want to avoid the label because you think it carries a negative connotation or something. I actually get annoyed when people say they "support feminism," but refuse to call themselves feminists, because I think they perpetuate the idea that being a feminist is some kind of sweeping ideological statement that should be avoided. It really isn't.

Indeed.

why can't all decent men and women

call themselves feminists?

out of respect

for those who fought for this

"Grand Canyon" by Ani Difranco

ETA: A link to the rest of the poem: http://www.danah.org/Ani/EducatedGuess/GrandCanyon.html

[1918me]

ETA: A link to the rest of the poem: http://www.danah.org/Ani/EducatedGuess/GrandCanyon.html

I hadn't seen that before, thanks for linking.

[Vrana]

I hadn't seen that before, thanks for linking.

It's been discussed in an earlier thread but for those male friends I have who identify with feminism it isn't so much about avoiding the negative connotations as it has been about not asserting space and speaking instead of women they feel, so they've decided on feminist ally, that way the word in itself isn't avoided.

[protar]

Personally I would rather call myself a supporter of feminism rather than a feminist not because I think it's a "dirty word" but because I'm one: not active enough in the area to call myself a feminist and two: don't know enough about all the feminist theory and philosophy that you lot talk about. Obviously some people do see it as a dirty word but for me it's just "how can I consider myself part of a movement when my only "work" related to the movement is a few (probably misguided) posts on a fantasy forum?"

[Dany's Silver]

I hadn't seen that before, thanks for linking.

You're welcome. :)

I know men who are feminists (and identify as such), and yet in undergraduate and graduate school wouldn't take FemLit courses out of respect for the women participating. One of these friends said that he would feel awkward if the discussion turned to sexual abuse/assault (which it sometimes did), and he knows it's not that men haven't faced sexual abuse/assault, but he wanted the students in the class to be comfortable enough to bring up issues without a male in the room.

[1918me]

It's been discussed in an earlier thread but for those male friends I have who identify with feminism it isn't so much about avoiding the negative connotations as it has been about not asserting space and speaking instead of women they feel, so they've decided on feminist ally, that way the word in itself isn't avoided.

Personally, I've always felt (at least within my circle of friends) that the men who identify as feminists very rarely come off as asserting themselves above women feminists, although I can definitely understand the reasoning behind your male friends' actions, which seems like a very good compromise. I still think it's fine for men to identify themselves as such, so long as they don't overstep into mainsplaining territory or related areas.

Edited to add an apostrophe

[OccupyHarrenhal]

It's been discussed in an earlier thread but for those male friends I have who identify with feminism it isn't so much about avoiding the negative connotations as it has been about not asserting space and speaking instead of women they feel, so they've decided on feminist ally, that way the word in itself isn't avoided.

That's kind of where I'm coming from.

Negative experiences I've had with some so-called allies in LGBT* activism does make me a bit wary of the term.

[Kalbear]

You talk about internalized ideas being harmful but are men going to absorb the treatment of Olyver and be harmed? If so, how? Greater anxiety about their bodies

This is already happening; we're seeing as a result of more objectification of men in the media significant increases in eating disorders and depression about male looks. I am not saying that this is a 'but it happens to us TOOOO' kind of thing - merely that objectification can be harmful to everyone, and making everything hypersexualized is likely not the right answer regardless.

[Gwydden]

If you're talking about prose fiction - okay, but fuck, I'm not sure I've ever heard someone decrying objectification in prose fiction. Maybe in decades-old prose fiction. Usually the criticism is just flat/boring/poor characterization of women, which is not something we want to embrace and bring over to men; or it's tropes, which is a different thing. And, um, the largest-selling genre of novels is essentially devoted to female-gaze objectification of men, so...

Usually discussions about objectification are about something more visual. Like this. (giggle)

It's about offering alternatives. That's how change can be effected. I am aware the visual medium is more powerful, and it is what I wished changed in the long run. I believe we can all contribute to that, in our own ways. The problem with the genre your referring to is that is too isolated a case for it to have a wider effect. That is, is aimed at a very specific audience and, as you point out yourself, devoted to the objectification of men. On the other hand, you see plenty of media incidentally objectify women, even if that's not their main point at all. What I'm suggesting is something equivalent for men.

- There's two main components of visual-media objectification of women: exaggerated and overexposed sex traits, and unnatural/impossible poses designed to show off sex traits at the expense of character traits. Traditionally visually-objectified men (e.g. romance covers) will be the former but not the latter. The trouble is that men are sexualized in dominant poses (generally meshing with characterization) while women are sexualized in awkward, submissive, or ridiculous poses (often clashing with characterization). The previous link demonstrates how goofy those poses look on men. (Which, again, is fine if goofy is what you're going for. Which is not the case for many of these eschergirls.)

- In some market segments (games) objectified women are near-universal. With a few notable exceptions (Skyrim) you know that a bunch of those alleged suits of plate mail are going to turn out to be bikinis. If not all of them. (Let's not speak of TERA, where they're more likely to be pasties.) Objectifying nearly all the men in retaliation just would make games look immature and ridiculous. The existing objectification already tends to do this; it's one of the reasons we want it to stop being the default.

Sexualization can be done without contradicting the character's personality. Men can be depicted in submissive poses (my personal favorite, precisely because it is uncommon) and women can be sexualized in dominant poses. I do agree that quite often the very act of sexualization comes at the cost of characterization, good taste and common sense. I'm not promoting it. I'm just not condemning it either. Let's reduce it, use it where it makes sense and in a tasteful manner, and do so evenly, because that's only fair and will help fight a number of misconceptions a great deal of people have.

I'm against chain mail bikinis and acrobat worthy poses, don't get me wrong here.

- Nobody wants mutually assured objectification. Homophobic bros play a lot of games; they don't want to see that shit. Women don't generally ask for equal access to gratuitous eye candy; we ask for characters that better represent us, that don't caricature us.

And we should care about them because...? By that rule, we shouldn't include LGB characters in media, less we offend someone's sensibilities.

Good characterization should go without saying. Is something that should be asked of every character. If anything, it's just fair women can play more roles that outdated gender stereotypes that were never true in the first place. The same goes for men. I hate the stereotypical male protagonist, as much as I hate the stereotypical damsel in distress or femme fatale.

The only people I ever see suggesting it are a subset of the same hetero men toward whom the status quo already caters. It's a shit imitation of a solution. It's the split baby kind of fairness, conceding something of your own to prevent us from getting what we actually want.

Calling it a concession implies two things that are totally false. For once, it implies I'm losing something by agreeing to it, that I have nothing to gain from it; secondly, it implies I'm doing so grudgingly . This is false. As I just said, I'm not a fan of stereotypical male protagonists, and some adequate sexualization might actually make them more interesting and add to their personalities. Sexuality is not in any way demeaning, in and of itself.

It's also not an elaborate scheme to keep you from what you want. It's an idea that would help both of us get what we want, which is in many points the same thing.

Compare het-female-gaze objectification (romance hero) to het-male-gaze objectification (congratulations sir knight, you have won the princess's hand in marriage). Equal titillation does not result in equal verisimilitude, equal agency, or equal depth of character.

btw- this is the kind of not objectified most of us want. Some very fine ladies on there. It's not about avoiding sexy; it's about not being comically oversexed.

When I speak of male sexualization I don't mean stereotypical male hero power fantasy. I mean male sexualization.

I quite agree with your final statement.

[TerraPrime]

First, I disagree with the implied tenet of sexualization. I think our mass media (in the U.S.) tend to de-sexualize human beings in general. I would consider an increase in portrayals of human beings in sexual relations as a restoration to normal, not an enhancing addition, as the word "sexualize" implies. It is, in my view, a de-repression and not promotion, though obviously it has promoting effects in the context of a repressed culture.

That said, I think there are valid comparisons between how men and women are portrayed in their respective sexual roles in the media. In that venue, I'd argue that some, if not most, of the depiction of women in sexual situations are done for the benefit of straight men, and not for the empowering of women to choose their own sexual expression. In that sense, it is not a restoration of the natural human state of being sexual, as I talked about in the first paragraph.

I think the pitfalls in criticizing media's potrayal of women in sexual contexts is indeed the difficulty in separating out the two - is this scene/movie/video done to titillate straight men, or is it done to empower women's self-determination? A classic example of the former is the presence of lesbians in porn flicks marketed to straight men - in those cases, the lesbian sex on screen is a performance to amuse men. Can a woman who watch this film find it empowering to witness two women having sex? Yes, she can. But just because one, or a few women, can glean such a message, it doesn't erase the intent behind the creation of that scene, nor the marketing ploys in promoting that film, both of which treat the women's sexuality as a product to be consumed by the male audience.

To use a book reference, it is the difference between Daenerys' scene wtih her handmaid and Asha's scene with Theon when they first met.

On the argument that increasing the sexual depiction of men, I would like to think that we already have a lot of sexual depiction of men. I mean, every male lead has a romantic interest, sometimes more than one. I mean, hello, James Bond? James Kirk? So I will need to see some convincing argument that men are not already sexualized in the media. But perhaps the argument is not about depiction of men in sexual situations, but rather, that men are in sexual situations where they are not the agents for that scene. For instance, the scene in WoT where Matt was raped by Dylin. If that's the case, then I think we're talking about power, or at the least, character agency, in the specific context of sexual activities.

[Gwydden]

On the argument that increasing the sexual depiction of men, I would like to think that we already have a lot of sexual depiction of men. I mean, every male lead has a romantic interest, sometimes more than one. I mean, hello, James Bond? James Kirk? So I will need to see some convincing argument that men are not already sexualized in the media. But perhaps the argument is not about depiction of men in sexual situations, but rather, that men are in sexual situations where they are not the agents for that scene. For instance, the scene in WoT where Matt was raped by Dylin. If that's the case, then I think we're talking about power, or at the least, character agency, in the specific context of sexual activities.

I guess a way to put what I'm arguing for is a greater depiction of men as sexual objects and women as sexual subjects. Your example falls within that categorization, though it does not need to be that extreme.