Atheism+, wtf?!

Nodin

....didn't she meet her OH at a conference....? Or is that a misfire in my braincells....

Mark Hamill

Watson wrote:

pin-up calendars added to an existing environment in which women were seen first as sexual objects

*Citation needed. Also, what environment is she talking about? The online skeptic environment? Is she claiming that men only go to female blogs to look at the pictures of the bloggers (assuming there are any)? Why isn't it possible that men see women as sexual beings as well as intellectual ones?

Watson wrote:

Adding a calendar of men did not balance out the calendar of women...The women were objectified on a level unmatched by those viewing and commenting on the men

Men can't be objectified as much as women? Islam would agree with her.

Watson wrote:

I had ****lord after ****lord emailing me to tell me that I have no right to complain about being groped or propositioned at conferences because I posed in a calendar

Be nice if she would ever reproduce these emails. I have the sneaking suspicion that the vast majority say the equivalent of how its a bit much to complain about being proposed, considering how sexually liberated her calender posings make her seem.
She also uses this as the justification for the previous quote, claiming objective evaluation because, in her opinion, a man in her situation wouldn't get the emails. Which is a pretty poor justification for someone who calls herself a skeptic.

Watson wrote:

[a calender] comes with a “Geeks Boobies” bracelet, so you can tell everyone you meet what a giant ****head you are without saying a single word

[sarcasm]Whats wrong with boobies? I think Watsons is a gender traitor [sarcasm]:pac:
Seriously though, why would that make someone a ****head?

Zombrex

yawha wrote: »

Well, the picture is already out there in the wild, and it's relevant to the article.

She's also human and has gradually began to learn the implications of these sorts of things in various contexts. This kind of thing is really hard.

What, you mean she wasn't immediately dismissed as a privileged misogynist and gender traitor and kicked out of the community?

Odd ...

yawha

Her point is that men aren't sexualised nearly as much as women. Men have the dominant voice, and are considered the default. Women are seen as "others", and their sexual nature/physical attractiveness is scrutinized much more than who they are as people, compared to men.

Personally, I don't think this is hard to accept. It's evident in the world I see around me. It's evident when I take a step back and listen to how people generally talk about/to women vs. men. It's evident in the media I consume, how male vs. female characters are presented in movies and TV shows, for example. And the biggest indicator is the fact that women often speak out about feeling sexualised and demeaned on the basis of their gender. Men don't do this nearly as often. You can suggest that they do this because they are brainwashed by feminism or something, but that is a little conspiracy theory-ish for me.

yawha

Zombrex wrote: »

What, you mean she wasn't immediately dismissed as a privileged misogynist and gender traitor and kicked out of the community?

Not really sure what you mean. Like I said, nude calendars being empowering or sexualizing/demeaning is a complex and interesting topic. Despite what is being claimed here, members of these communities do have opinions and do disagree on things. This is not the same thing at all as a privileged person coming in and making a tired argument in a space for marginalized voices.

fitz0

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Men can't be objectified as much as women? Islam would agree with her.

She obviously hasn't seen the flocks of women on Henry St when the firemans calender goes on sale.

Ickle Magoo

Don't forget diet coke guy...no argument that men are objectified as much as women would be complete without him... :pac:

decimatio

I never quite understood this argument, about objectification of women.

Surely both men and women objectify and sexualise the opposite sex and the same sex in terms of homosexuals? I understand that men and women (and gays) objectify eachother differently and subgroups objectify others differently again.

For many men a woman showing off her body is the sexualising factor, for many women it might be a mans percieved power or wealth that is the allure. For some men a powerful woman is what is attractive, for some women a weak man. Etc etc.

I mean, I don't understand why this is a bad thing?

I mean is my respect and admiration of Hirsi Ali diminished because I also happen to think of her as an attractive woman? Is my respect and admiration of Aung San Suu Kyi somehow diminished because I think she's attractive, especially for a woman of her age.

Does anyone really think that someone they're attracted to isn't worth listening to intellectually or isnt equal somehow because they're attracted to them?

In my case intellectual conversation is a major attraction so by conversing with women about history, culture, or linguistics am I not objectifying them just as much as someone objectifying them based on looks?

yawha

It's more about how men and women are generally presented and perceived in society, and the expectations, othering, and socialized behaviours that come with that, rather than the idea that finding someone attractive diminishes them as a person.

decimatio

yawha wrote: »

It's more about how men and women are generally presented and perceived in society, and the expectations, othering, and socialized behaviours that come with that, rather than the idea that finding someone attractive diminishes them as a person.

Such as ?

Mark Hamill

yawha wrote: »

Men have the dominant voice, and are considered the default. Women are seen as "others", and their sexual nature/physical attractiveness is scrutinized much more than who they are as people, compared to men.

Citation needed.

yawha wrote: »

And the biggest indicator is the fact that women often speak out about feeling sexualised and demeaned on the basis of their gender. Men don't do this nearly as often.

Maybe men don't speak out because they don't feel demeaned for being sexualised?

Mark Hamill

yawha wrote: »

It's more about how men and women are generally presented and perceived in society, and the expectations, othering, and socialized behaviours that come with that, rather than the idea that finding someone attractive diminishes them as a person.

So its not that individuals do it, its that society does it?
You do realize that it's other women who are by the most sexualising of women in general, especially negatively? (There are plenty of men's magazines with attractive women in them, but its only in women's magazines that you find negative and judgmental articles about celebs with cellulite or who have put on weight)

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yeah but even when it's women doing it it's a mans fault somewhere down the line

we're sneaky like that

Newaglish

yawha wrote: »

Her point is that men aren't sexualised nearly as much as women. Men have the dominant voice, and are considered the default. Women are seen as "others", and their sexual nature/physical attractiveness is scrutinized much more than who they are as people, compared to men.

In your opinion? Or how are you stating this as a fact?

"Men have the dominant voice, and are considered the default" - considered by whom? Dominant voice in what? I hope you never have to write an academic or professional paper.

Obliq

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

yeah but even when it's women doing it it's a mans fault somewhere down the line

we're sneaky like that[/QUOTE

Got no research to back this up, but I reckon the first female ape who thought of picking the crud out of her teeth and arranging her hair different to the others got some sister-envy when she pulled the best equipped male ape in the tribe. But yeah, his fault for falling for that, when there were at least three more females with superior foraging skills available. I'd have said not sneaky, more easily led

Sulla Felix

Obliq wrote: »

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

yeah but even when it's women doing it it's a mans fault somewhere down the line

we're sneaky like that[/QUOTE

Got no research to back this up, but I reckon the first female ape who thought of picking the crud out of her teeth and arranging her hair different to the others got some sister-envy when she pulled the best equipped male ape in the tribe. But yeah, his fault for falling for that, when there were at least three more females with superior foraging skills available. I'd have said not sneaky, more easily led

I love me some foraging skills. Damn sexy apes.

yawha

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Citation needed.

I think you just provided my citation, for the point about women's physical attractiveness anyway:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You do realize that it's other women who are by the most sexualising of women in general, especially negatively? (There are plenty of men's magazines with attractive women in them, but its only in women's magazines that you find negative and judgmental articles about celebs with cellulite or who have put on weight)

Why is the scrutinization of female bodies so prominent in the media compared to male bodies? Why is a "women's magazine" synonymous with a shallow rag full of celebrity gossip? Why aren't there magazines like these aimed at men? Why is there so much general emphasis on the presentation of physically attractive females compared to men?

The fact that the magazines you've described are aimed at women is indicative to me that women have been socialized to think this is very important.

Also, the fact that you make the point about women doing this, not men, is interesting, and perhaps I should clarify my position. I'm not arguing that men are the devil, and that men are oppressing and sexualizing women. What I'm talking about is the widespread internalization of gender roles, perceptions and norms.

There are areas where this hurts men also. In particular, when it comes to parenthood, and who society generally considers to be the more caring, nurturing parent.

Nodin

....because the ideal of beauty in the modern world is the female and not the male.

Obliq

Nodin wrote: »

....because the ideal of beauty in the modern world is the female and not the male.

Not to me though:-) And I live here too.....haven't bought a women's magazine in my life before. Maybe it's all entirely subjective eh? If you feel inferior, bodywise (and show me a teen that doesn't), what better way of torturing yourself than to look at the current ideals? Reinforcing exactly what you think of yourself - and women are past masters at that (also, the commonality of a bunch of insecure people feeling better by arriving at the collective notion that "she's too thin" or "that dress does nothing for her") What the majority of people buy into is always what decides societal norms, isn't it?

Mark Hamill

yawha wrote: »

I think you just provided my citation, for the point about women's physical attractiveness anyway

What about the rest though? If the majority of female scutinization, and a lot of the sexualisation, comes from women, how does that make men the dominant or the default in society?

yawha wrote: »

Why is the scrutinization of female bodies so prominent in the media compared to male bodies? Why is a "women's magazine" synonymous with a shallow rag full of celebrity gossip? Why aren't there magazines like these aimed at men? Why is there so much general emphasis on the presentation of physically attractive females compared to men?

Because thats what women tend to want? Lets face it, its not male customers who keep these magazines in print.

yawha wrote: »

The fact that the magazines you've described are aimed at women is indicative to me that women have been socialized to think this is very important.

Socialised by who though? Other women? The magazines themselves?

yawha wrote: »

I'm not arguing that men are the devil, and that men are oppressing and sexualizing women. What I'm talking about is the widespread internalization of gender roles, perceptions and norms.

What do you mean by "internalization of gender roles, perceptions and norms" and how does it tie into your earlier claims?

decimatio

yawha wrote: »

Why is the scrutinization of female bodies so prominent in the media compared to male bodies?

Because a womans sexual attractiveness is very physical to the majority of men. Physical attractiveness is powerful and can bring great reward financially and otherwise.

Mens attractiveness to women however has different emphasis on different factors. Let's say how successful or wealthy he is.

Why is a "women's magazine" synonymous with a shallow rag full of celebrity gossip?

For the same reason a 'mens magazine' has pictures of breasts and asses on every second page.

Why aren't there magazines like these aimed at men? Why is there so much general emphasis on the presentation of physically attractive females compared to men?

Answered above. I would have thought this was quite well known. Physical attractiveness is simply the largest factor in attracting a suitable mate for women and one of the biggest attracting factors for men.

But for women physicality is usually much lower down the list of factors.

The fact that the magazines you've described are aimed at women is indicative to me that women have been socialized to think this is very important.

Like men are socialised to think tits, cars, and sport is important?

I think its much more likely that what we are discussing here is simply the result of our very nature as primates.

We're not blank slates when we are born to be molded in whatever way society likes. Our nature defines us, biologically and chemically.

There are areas where this hurts men also. In particular, when it comes to parenthood, and who society generally considers to be the more caring, nurturing parent.

Generally considered and unfortunately largely true. We can't deny our nature especially if we want to strive to overcome it.

Obliq

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What about the rest though? If the majority of female scutinization, and a lot of the sexualisation, comes from women, how does that make men the dominant or the default in society?

Because thats what women tend to want? Lets face it, its not male customers who keep these magazines in print.

Socialised by who though? Other women? The magazines themselves?


What do you mean by "internalization of gender roles, perceptions and norms" and how does it tie into your earlier claims?

I'll give ya my opinion on it if ya don't mind:-) Knocking off after this though, so I'll just give ya my thoughts and toddle off.

It's my belief that women's scrutinization of each other is all based on sex/relationships with men, essentially. We tend to examine each other in ways that can be destructive and demeaning (eg. 'He's too good for her' or 'She's all over him' or 'Jaysus, they've their tongues hanging out and why wouldn't they when she's hanging out too' - just off the top of my head, but all things I've heard us women say about other women) and I think this is down to the competitiveness we are biologically hardwired for. Attracting a mate is part of our (and every other creature's) nature, and we have evolved to a point where it's not ALL about the pretty plumage, but it is a massive hang-up IMO.

Stands to reason that 'power to choose' (which we women give to men by constantly trying to alter levels of attraction) puts men in the driving seat (unlike with birds, where the male is 'objectified' by the size of his, ahem, tail feathers) But I would say we ALL (both our sexes have evolved together after all) on an unconscious level at the very least, subscribe to the overwhelming bias in images of gorgeous women.

I don't think you can separate women generally feeling threatened by the 'in your face' nature of so many images, from men greatly appreciating them. It's on such a base level for both sexes I think, that we really struggle with the notion of attractiveness and attraction.

So I don't blame one sex more than the other. I do wonder why we women buy those mags though.....Never read one that made me feel good about myself. Sort of like self-flagellation, but with paper.

yawha

@Mark
But, why do many women obsess over body image and scrutinize the bodies of other women? Why do women disproportionately buy magazines like these compared to men?

By internalization, I mean that ideas about gender - roles, behaviours, expectations - are accepted by many as a result of their upbringing and their role models, the media etc., and assumed to be inherent gender traits without much thought. It's not so different to people accepting that they are of a particular religion due to having being brought up in a religious tradition. Often they are rationalised as having to have come from our biological nature (armchair evolutionary psychology is a strange phenomenon, and likely to be wildly inaccurate when you think about it - anyone can come up with any kind of theory they like, and justify it by linking it back to how they assume cavemen behaved, or how we are "biologically hardwired").

@decimatio
Do you have any evidence that all of these things are human nature, or are you just assuming? Why do you think that gender differences are much more likely to be biological?

Obliq

yawha wrote: »

@Mark
But, why do many women obsess over body image and scrutinize the bodies of other women? Why do women disproportionately buy magazines like these compared to men?

By internalization, I mean that ideas about gender - roles, behaviours, expectations - are accepted by many as a result of their upbringing and their role models, the media etc., and assumed to be inherent gender traits without much thought. It's not so different to people accepting that they are of a particular religion due to having being brought up in a religious tradition. Often they are rationalised as having to have come from our biological nature (armchair evolutionary psychology is a strange phenomenon, and likely to be wildly inaccurate when you think about it - anyone can come up with any kind of theory they like, and justify it by linking it back to how they assume cavemen behaved, or how we are "biologically hardwired").

@decimatio
Do you have any evidence that all of these things are human nature, or are you just assuming? Why do you think that gender differences are much more likely to be biological?

Seems you only want replies from the 2 mentioned, but hope ya don't mind me anyway:-) Yes, I came up with any old theory, based on having asked myself the same questions you yourself have put in your first lines. No, I have no citations and may well be wildly inaccurate. Thing is, I consider us all to be part of the animal kingdom and I love watching animal behaviour and sometimes recognizing similar behaviours in us. I keep chickens. The pecking order is HARSH.
In fairness, I was only justifying all that by saying IN MY OPINION and I THINK a lot. I love people watching though - and love wondering on the origins of our behaviours. Armchair evolutionary biology ROCKS in my book! Sorry couldn't help ya with any studies done, but I liked your questions so chimed in.

decimatio

yawha wrote: »

@Mark
But, why do many women obsess over body image and scrutinize the bodies of other women? Why do women disproportionately buy magazines like these compared to men?

Isn't it obvious? To see the competition and to compare themselves.

@decimatio
Do you have any evidence that all of these things are human nature, or are you just assuming? Why do you think that gender differences are much more likely to be biological?

I'm not dismissing nurture by any means but its at best a partner to nature.

As for evidence, I've read quite a few studies in the past regarding behaviour and biology. I don't have a link to anything I've read but after a 5 second google this appears to be a good read; Buss, David M. The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating. New York: HarperCollins, 1994.

The simple fact of the matter is that males of a species like ours are cheap. Men are simply not as valuable as women for reproduction and hence survival as a species.

Why are men more likely to sleep around largely indiscriminately? Because sperm is cheap and the man loses nothing by shooting it into anything with a recepticle. He gets to spread his genes so biologically his job is done and his brain congratulates his penis on a job well done until 30 minutes later when he's locked and loaded again.

Why are women more likely to be choosey about sexual partners? Because pregnancy was (is) a life threatening condition and a woman is limited by how many offspring she can deliver. She will hence try to choose a male she thinks of as worthy of this.

Sentient beings we may be but we are still just primates. Hairless apes who think too much of ourselves and don't understand that most if not everything we do and think can be traced to some animal instinct.

Mark Hamill

Obliq wrote: »

So I don't blame one sex more than the other. I do wonder why we women buy those mags though.....Never read one that made me feel good about myself. Sort of like self-flagellation, but with paper.

My posts might come across as defensive, but I'm not really blaming any sex, I'm just countering the notion that men are dominant in this. Both sexes can sexualised the other and both can scrutinise the competition. They just do it in different ways, eg womens magazines tend to negatively scrutinise specific celebrity bodies, while mens magazines tend more to give ways to emulate general ideals of the male physique ("10 minute ab workout" articles etc.). I wouldn't blame men for womens magazines and I wouldn't blame women for mens magazines.

Mark Hamill

yawha wrote: »

@Mark
But, why do many women obsess over body image and scrutinize the bodies of other women? Why do women disproportionately buy magazines like these compared to men?

I don't know, you tell me.

yawha wrote: »

By internalization, I mean that ideas about gender - roles, behaviours, expectations - are accepted by many as a result of their upbringing and their role models, the media etc., and assumed to be inherent gender traits without much thought.

OK, I dont really disagree with this, but how does this lead into men being the dominant and the default, while women are seen as others? Men might be internalised to by male magazines, which talk about stereotypically male stuff, but women are internalised to buy female magazines, which talk about stereotypically female stuff. So while male stuff might be the default for men, female stuff is the default for women. It cancels out.

yawha wrote: »

@decimatio
Do you have any evidence that all of these things are human nature, or are you just assuming? Why do you think that gender differences are much more likely to be biological?

There are gender differences supported by studies, such as women evaluating sexual attractiveness a little differently to men and women having slightly different preferences depending on when they are fertile.
I would say that the differences are biological in origin and tweaked by environment.

Obliq

Mark Hamill wrote: »

My posts might come across as defensive, but I'm not really blaming any sex, I'm just countering the notion that men are dominant in this. Both sexes can sexualised the other and both can scrutinise the competition. They just do it in different ways, eg womens magazines tend to negatively scrutinise specific celebrity bodies, while mens magazines tend more to give ways to emulate general ideals of the male physique ("10 minute ab workout" articles etc.). I wouldn't blame men for womens magazines and I wouldn't blame women for mens magazines.

Didn't think ya were blaming either sex Mark!

Galvasean

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Don't forget diet coke guy...no argument that men are objectified as much as women would be complete without him... :pac:

Pfft, he's old news. Nowadays its all about the giant Ambercrobe man on dame St. Poor guy doesn't even have a face.



Just looking at the ad puts me in the mood for rape.
Rape and crisps.

Dades

Galvasean wrote: »

Poor guy doesn't even have a face.

Or pubes. Can I say pubes here?