Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Examples of media from the last 5 years where women are objectified
Options
Comments
-
This line of thinking crops up all the time. "I was able to handle it therefore everyone else just needs to toughen up". Sure it's great of an individual can handle nastiness directed at them but wouldn't it also be great if we took steps to discourage nastiness? They're not mutually exclusive things.
Don't we already have a system of politeness and what is considered acceptable behavior? Most people conform to those systems. The people who wolf-whistle, throw abusive comments, etc are those who choose not to follow such a system...
You seem to be looking for a stronger system like a set of laws with punishments for those who break those conventions on behavior.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »I'm not sure how you got that from my post. The point is that it happens to a lot of people, and objecting to it, isn't going to change most peoples behavior. The people who care about others feelings will go out of their way to be polite and not be an ass. The people who don't care, are going to behave the way they want anyway.
That's not true. For example, it used to be quite common to hear nasty stuff about gay people. It's rare to hear it now. I'm sure there's are people who still want to say these things but since the middle ground has shifted they can't get away with it. I know people with mild facial deformities where the most awful things were said to them in the 80s/90s by randomers on the street whereas now it would be completely unacceptable. Things Can and do change.
Do you think calling a gay peron a f****t is the same as calling a straight person a breeder? Or calling a black person the n word and a white person a cracker. Are they the exact same to you?No, they don't. They just say that it affects men differently, and therefore such discrimination or unwanted behavior towards women is worse.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Don't we already have a system of politeness and what is considered acceptable behavior? Most people conform to those systems. The people who wolf-whistle, throw abusive comments, etc are those who choose not to follow such a system...
You seem to be looking for a stronger system like a set of laws with punishments for those who break those conventions on behavior.
Not looking for a law.
Yes we have a system of politeness but we had that system when I was growing up and what's considered polite back then has changed. Why can't it change further?0 -
That's not true. For example, it used to be quite common to hear nasty stuff about gay people. It's rare to hear it now. I'm sure there's are people who still want to say these things but since the middle ground has shifted they can't get away with it. I know people with mild facial deformities where the most awful things were said to them in the 80s/90s by randomers on the street whereas now it would be completely unacceptable. Things Can and do change.
Yes, things can and do change. Agree totally there.
However, I've yet to hear any practical ways for change to apply to this area? I'm just hearing criticisms that it's happening.Do you think calling a gay peron a f****t is the same as calling a straight person a breeder? Or calling a black person the n word and a white person a cracker. Are they the exact same to you?
Ahh well... For me, words' meanings are carried by the emotion/intent behind them. I've lived in countries where white people were a minority, and have been called whitey, pinky, etc. Just as I've heard black friends call each other the n word in friendship and it being passed off as acceptable.
Still... the articles on objectifying women don't seek to raise the awareness of objectification of men, will dismiss it as being different for the genders and tend to focus on women's concerns.0 -
Nobody's dictating anything to anyone here. You can drop that nonsense. I'm talking about mutual values in society. About how we treat and value people.
One example of how feeling that you're only assessed on your looks can be bad for society is the prevalence of eating disorders/ body dysmorphia etc.
As I said before, the solution is working on the individual's self esteem so they aren't vulnerable to the comments of others. Trying to control the thoughts and comments of the world is futile and merely treating the symptom.0 -
Advertisement
-
Not looking for a law.
Yes we have a system of politeness but we had that system when I was growing up and what's considered polite back then has changed. Why can't it change further?
Yes, it changed. I can remember when holding a door open for a woman, holding out her coat to help her put it on, etc were considered the mark of a polite man. You'd be amazed at the numbers of women who have given me dirty looks simply because I held the door open for then as I was leaving the same building. Not seeking approval, although a simple acknowledgement would have been nice. And then there are those who get annoyed because I didn't hold the door for them.
Personally, I would have no problems with there being more courtesy and politeness... but I would love for women to determine what is acceptable and what is not, rather than leaving it to the individual to decide. Then, at least, we'd have a clear system to shove to rude people and say do this.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Yes, things can and do change. Agree totally there.
However, I've yet to hear any practical ways for change to apply to this area? I'm just hearing criticisms that it's happening.
Criticisms are practical. How do you think the attitude to gay people changed. Because the key "practical" events were decriminalisation 1993 and the recent marriage equality. Its impossible to pinpoint how these gradual social changes take place but direct practical measures are a small part. Some people will respond to criticism of their attitudes. Others will respond to their friends and peers changing attitudes in a cascade. The idea that if change is to be made there must be some kind of masterplan on how it will be achieved is mechanistic in the extreme.Ahh well... For me, words' meanings are carried by the emotion/intent behind them. I've lived in countries where white people were a minority, and have been called whitey, pinky, etc. Just as I've heard black friends call each other the n word in friendship and it being passed off as acceptable.
Could YOU call a black friend the n word? If only intent matters it shouldn't be an issue.0 -
Koala Sunshine wrote: »As I said before, the solution is working on the individual's self esteem so they aren't vulnerable to the comments of others. Trying to control the thoughts and comments of the world is futile and merely treating the symptom.
So should gay people have just toughened up and not tried to change homophobic attitudes? Because they had quite a success in changing attitudes. Seems like it makes sense to try and change attitudes.0 -
Imagine if you were that nerd. Imagine if, starting from the time you were 12, every day at least one person yelled ‘NERD’ at you in the street. Imagine that at family gatherings people discussed what a nerd you are. every Time you leave the house you wonder if someone’s going to yell NERD at you. Some people follow you around calling ‘nerd’.
How do you think that affects one’s self esteem?
But sure, they’re only women/nerds. Who cares if they’re made feel uncomfortable?
I would say that there needs to be some kind of system set up to help young people deal with stuff like that.
You know, give the kid being called a "nerd" the appropriate tools to manage it and cope with it.
I'm feeling like we can't actually control bad behavior and I'm not even sure what an appropriate punishment for calling someone a bad name or saying something awful to them ought to be.
If 99 people call me a nerd but it only really starts to get to me at person 100 then there is a problem there in that we can't punish person 100 and we can't even really retroactively punish the other 99.
The better solution would be to prepare me for that kind of stuff and help me deal with it.
I'd rather have the tools to deal with someone calling me "fatty" once in a while than to have to go to the hassle of lecturing everyone who will listen every time some clown points and laughs my giant belly.
I wonder though if it's actually cathartic for people to read articles and such where objectification of women is condemned? Maybe that is the coping mechanism?
We can't really escape from the fact that women in action movies etc (which seem to be the most popular these days) are going to be in top physical condition. We can't get away from the fact that men will be more attracted to certain "looks" and everyone on the planet knows which looks are deemed most attractive. So maybe the only relief from that is reading or listening to the odd rant.
Getting rid of "Grid Girls" and the ladies on the darts is definitely a massive victory there.
However, as women's sports become more popular and more mainstream you are going to see more and more athletic women being help up as the "ideal".
Better to give people the tools for dealing with reality that to try and alter reality in ways that may not even be possible.0 -
Criticisms are practical.
Constructive criticism is practical. Telling everyone that the whole male gender is responsible for objectifying women is not.
Look at the type of criticisms thrown at the fashion industry. It's not exactly Criticisms against the fashion industry, per se, but that the majority of photographers are male, the majority of designers are male, the majority of management is male. It's not that the women in the fashion industry are objectifying women, it's that the men are. Even when the labels are run by female photographers, female designers, etc they're responding to the male influence rather than objectifying women themselves.How do you think the attitude to gay people changed.
Well... let's see. Probably because they shoved it in peoples faces, and stopped hiding it behind closed doors?Because the key "practical" events were decriminalisation 1993 and the recent marriage equality. Its impossible to pinpoint how these gradual social changes take place but direct practical measures are a small part. Some people will respond to criticism of their attitudes. Others will respond to their friends and peers changing attitudes in a cascade. The idea that if change is to be made there must be some kind of masterplan on how it will be achieved is mechanistic in the extreme.
And criticism of gay people still exists. There are still people who will insult them. Just like the comment that women throw at male posters, it probably happens more than you expect.
It will take time for the gay movement to be completely accepted into society. Probably need a few generations to die off with their old-fashioned ideas... and even then, you will still find people uncomfortable with expressions of intimacy from gay people, who are willing to express their discomfort publicly.Could YOU call a black friend the n word? If only intent matters it shouldn't be an issue.
Me? No. Just as I could never use the c*nt word. Or a dozen other insults which I think are horrible... but then i see no value in insulting other people verbally. My ignoring them is far more effective.0 -
Advertisement
-
So should gay people have just toughened up and not tried to change homophobic attitudes? Because they had quite a success in changing attitudes. Seems like it makes sense to try and change attitudes.
I don't think you really understand how being gay became more accepted. They did toughen up. They did seek to ignore the insults and discrimination. Or face it head-on. "I'm gay and I'm proud", and other kinds of slogans. They refused to be pushed into the background... They didn't moan about people objectifying them all the time. They set their values by other gay people, not by the people who insulted them.
People changed their attitudes to gay people because they had little choice in the matter. Being openly gay became more popular in spite of the criticism, and gained support out of admiration for that stand.0 -
So should gay people have just toughened up and not tried to change homophobic attitudes? Because they had quite a success in changing attitudes. Seems like it makes sense to try and change attitudes.
At the end of the day there is nothing wrong with valuing looks, people should be free to value whatever they want. There is however something wrong with persecuting and harassing people.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Constructive criticism is practical. Telling everyone that the whole male gender is responsible for objectifying women is not.
It doesn't have to be what you view as constructive for it to work. Fact is, a lot of companies are at least trying to engage in this front. Lots of companies at least superficially responding to criticisms. You can criticise these criticisms all you want but at some level they're working.
Look at the type of criticisms thrown at the fashion industry. It's not exactly Criticisms against the fashion industry, per se, but that the majority of photographers are male, the majority of designers are male, the majority of management is male. It's not that the women in the fashion industry are objectifying women, it's that the men are. Even when the labels are run by female photographers, female designers, etc they're responding to the male influence rather than objectifying women themselves.
The criticisms I've heard of the fashion industry just criticised the industry and didn't focus on whether it was men or women behind it. But I haven't actually sought out this criticism so maybe I'm wrong and the majority of the criticism is anti-men. Where do you see this criticism?Well... let's see. Probably because they shoved it in peoples faces, and stopped hiding it behind closed doors?
That's a bit simplistic. It was a lot of factors. But criticising Was a big part of it. It certainly wasn't gotten by being quiet.And criticism of gay people still exists. There are still people who will insult them. Just like the comment that women throw at male posters, it probably happens more than you expect.
I know it exists. But it's socially unacceptable. I don't think anyone is under the illusion that it will EVER go away. Some people will always hate minorities. And not just older people. But the fact that it's hugely frowned upon is a massive victory. You don't seem to value anything that isn't part of some great plan that has 100% success. Gay people didn't have a master plan, and it's not a 100% success, it never will be, but it's still a MASSIVE change. I don't see why women can't use the same methods.Me? No. Just as I could never use the c*nt word. Or a dozen other insults which I think are horrible... but then i see no value in insulting other people verbally. My ignoring them is far more effective.
It seems you realise that the n word is far more loaded than cracker. That the f word for gay people is far more loaded than breeder for straight people. In a similar manner objectifying women is seen as worse than objectifying men. Whether you agree or not, many people view the history of women as them being not taken seriously as anything other than either pretty things to look at or wives/mother's. It's not surprising that these people think something that continues that trend is a bad thing.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »And I didn't suggest that it wasn't wrong. I didn't try to excuse it. I said to ignore it and move on with their lives, and to stop caring so much about external opinons... because as far as I can see, it's part of human nature, and unlikely to disappear.
I guess that's where we differ. When I see a group of people experiencing discrimination I don't think they should ignore it and get on with their lives. i think that it should be called out and something should be done about it. And I don't think the onus is on them to get over it as opposed to the people who are discriminating.0 -
Koala Sunshine wrote: »At the end of the day there is nothing wrong with valuing looks, people should be free to value whatever they want. There is however something wrong with persecuting and harassing people.
What about non persecution and harassment of gay people. For example, what if you value being straight? Do you think it would be good, bad , or neutral if a group of straight people sat around saying things like "gay people are grand, but I'd rather hang out with a straight person". This isn't harassment. It's not persecution.0 -
Now we are getting to the core of the issue.
Not being taken seriously by other people is the problem. Ultimately you can not force people to take others seriously. Each individual however can carry themselves in a certain way and react to the world in a certain way which brings more respect.0 -
What about non persecution and harassment of gay people. For example, what if you value being straight? Do you think it would be good, bad , or neutral if a group of straight people sat around saying things like "gay people are grand, but I'd rather hang out with a straight person". This isn't harassment. It's not persecution.
Each individual is entitled to choose who to hang around with for whatever reason they want. To think otherwise is authoritarian.0 -
Koala Sunshine wrote: »Each individual is entitled to choose who to hang around with for whatever reason they want. To think otherwise is authoritarian.
Of course they can choose. I'm talking about speech. Do you think it's good for society if people talk this way. An example would be "Im not racist but...." Where the person says something which is not persecution or harassing but is usually crass and stereotyping. Obviously they can think what they want, and they can say what they want, but do you think its a good thing that they do say it?0 -
Of course they can choose. I'm talking about speech. Do you think it's good for society if people talk this way. An example would be "Im not racist but...." Where the person says something which is not persecution or harassing but is usually crass and stereotyping. Obviously they can think what they want, and they can say what they want, but do you think its a good thing that they do say it?
I think it's better that they say it than not saying it. Beliefs and opinions can't be challenged if they are kept quiet.0 -
Koala Sunshine wrote: »I think it's better that they say it than not saying it. Beliefs and opinions can't be challenged if they are kept quiet.
Then it should be fine to criticise people discussing ratings of women.0 -
Advertisement
-
I guess that's where we differ. When I see a group of people experiencing discrimination I don't think they should ignore it and get on with their lives. i think that it should be called out and something should be done about it. And I don't think the onus is on them to get over it as opposed to the people who are discriminating.
Discrimination? I thought we were talking about objectifying someone?
I think there will always be an element of society that doesn't conform to being polite. I have no issue with you or others calling them out on it.
Objectifying people seems to be more of thing from entities like the advertising industry. Yes, people do it, but mostly internally or removed from the person they're discussing. Objecting to people judging others based on their appearance (objectifying) just seems very impractical. Sure, it makes some sense to encourage a change in the use of imagery or the focus on beauty in the media, but how do you police peoples normal interactions?0 -
Then it should be fine to criticise people discussing ratings of women.
It is of course fine. I see no issue with people discussing the attractiveness of others and I'm glad you gave your opinion so I can challenge it just like I would challenge those who thought it was immoral to be gay.0 -
LLMMLL wrote:Do you think calling a gay peron a f****t is the same as calling a straight person a breeder? Or calling a black person the n word and a white person a cracker. Are they the exact same to you?
Yup. Just words.LLMMLL wrote:Could YOU call a black friend the n word? If only intent matters it shouldn't be an issue.
I could and I do.
Intent and only intent can make a word powerful.0 -
Koala Sunshine wrote: »It is of course fine. I see no issue with people discussing the attractiveness of others and I'm glad you gave your opinion so I can challenge it just like I would challenge those who thought it was immoral to be gay.
But earlier you said it was negative to shame people who discuss this. If you're okay with people criticising those who discuss ratings of women why is it a negative and "shaming"? Surely it's a good thing like your criticism of homophobic conversations.0 -
But earlier you said it was negative to shame people who discuss this. If you're okay with people criticising those who discuss ratings of women why is it a negative and "shaming"? Surely it's a good thing like your criticism of homophobic conversations.
I think it is negative to shame people for their natural sexual desires, and for discussing their desires and who they find attractive amongst friends. I defend the right of people to make those shaming comments if they wish however.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Yup. Just words.
I could and I do.
Intent and only intent can make a word powerful.
And how about a black person you don't know?0 -
It doesn't have to be what you view as constructive for it to work. Fact is, a lot of companies are at least trying to engage in this front. Lots of companies at least superficially responding to criticisms. You can criticise these criticisms all you want but at some level they're working.
Constructive criticism.. criticising and suggesting practical ways to change it.
And explain how they're working? The problems that are supposed to come from negative objectification are on the rise. The media industry is still objectifying both genders. So...?That's a bit simplistic. It was a lot of factors. But criticising Was a big part of it. It certainly wasn't gotten by being quiet.
Of course, it's simplistic. Just as your point was.
Were we supposed to have an indepth conversation about it?I know it exists. But it's socially unacceptable. I don't think anyone is under the illusion that it will EVER go away. Some people will always hate minorities. And not just older people. But the fact that it's hugely frowned upon is a massive victory. You don't seem to value anything that isn't part of some great plan that has 100% success. Gay people didn't have a master plan, and it's not a 100% success, it never will be, but it's still a MASSIVE change. I don't see why women can't use the same methods.
Err.. no. I'm pointing out that change doesn't have a 100% success rate, and that there will always be those who won't conform.. and will continue to be abusive. So... how do you deal with that minority?
And in many ways, the Gay rights movement was based on the original womens rights movements.It seems you realise that the n word is far more loaded than cracker. That the f word for gay people is far more loaded than breeder for straight people.
Ahh well, I've never heard the word cracker being used in the real world. Just seen it used on the internet. Whereas I have heard the N-word being used depending on the country I was in, and the ethnic/racial group I was with. I've heard very few white people use the N-word, and heaps of Black people use it.In a similar manner objectifying women is seen as worse than objectifying men. Whether you agree or not, many people view the history of women as them being not taken seriously as anything other than either pretty things to look at or wives/mother's. It's not surprising that these people think something that continues that trend is a bad thing.
No, I get that many people view the situation that way. Whereas women have had equality in the workplace for at least two decades, have received loads of benefits due to their gender, etc.. but... we're still expected to look at the problem as if they hadn't.
Women have equality in the workplace and within society. Legally enforced equality. And in terms of social rights, they have, in many cases, more than equality. And social conditioning is working on people to create a more pc environment to protect womens sensibilities.0 -
Koala Sunshine wrote: »I think it is negative to shame people for their natural sexual desires, and for discussing their desires and who they find attractive amongst friends. I defend the right of people to make those shaming comments if they wish however.
Actually if that's really.your belief then I'm ok with that. We are at a stage where people are challenging attitudes to women and rating their looks. These conversations are more of a negative when they're so pervasive that people feel they can't challenge them. But since we're past that point it's good that they will be challenged. It's good that you're ok being challenged on that. Most of the posts on these threads are people butthurt that anyone dares criticise their views.0 -
Actually if that's really.your belief then I'm ok with that. We are at a stage where people are challenging attitudes to women and rating their looks. These conversations are more of a negative when they're so pervasive that people feel they can't challenge them. But since we're past that point it's good that they will be challenged. It's good that you're ok being challenged on that. Most of the posts on these threads are people butthurt that anyone dares criticise their views.
Care to show some?
Seems to me that most people come here for a discussion and expect to be challenged by someone on their opinions.
My views aren't set in stone. I develop how I understand things through conversation, either online or offline. I do make mistakes or have naive opinions, and I appreciate it when someone can logically show where I'm incorrect. I might not change my views completely but it encourages me to look at things from a different perspective.0 -
Advertisement
-
[Deleted User] wrote: »Constructive criticism.. criticising and suggesting practical ways to change it.
And explain how they're working? The problems that are supposed to come from negative objectification are on the rise. The media industry is still objectifying both genders. So...?
I haven't been following this particular story but aren't tjings like ring girls and "grid girls" on the way out? Other people have pointed out there's less TD with irish model in bikini photoshoots. Again you see to think if something doesn't have a 100% instant success rate then nothing has changed. It's a ridiculously high standard that had never been achieved.Of course, it's simplistic. Just as your point was.
Were we supposed to have an indepth conversation about it?
No but posting one point about increased visibility is just a way of ignoring that gay people criticised homophobia when they encountered it which was my point. And it was successful.Err.. no. I'm pointing out that change doesn't have a 100% success rate, and that there will always be those who won't conform.. and will continue to be abusive. So... how do you deal with that minority?
I'm not interested in the minority for the purposes of this. My point has nothing to do with them. I agree theyll always exist. But the main thing is that they're a minority. The most important thing for gay people is that the majority respect them and treat them accordingly. Of women achieved their aims with the majority this would be a great success.Ahh well, I've never heard the word cracker being used in the real world. Just seen it used on the internet. Whereas I have heard the N-word being used depending on the country I was in, and the ethnic/racial group I was with. I've heard very few white people use the N-word, and heaps of Black people use it.
And that's a part of my point. What may seem the same behaviour directed towards two different groups (calling them a name that refers to their skin colour) is actually completely different behaviour because those two groips have different histories.No, I get that many people view the situation that way. Whereas women have had equality in the workplace for at least two decades, have received loads of benefits due to their gender, etc.. but... we're still expected to look at the problem as if they hadn't.
Women have equality in the workplace and within society. Legally enforced equality. And in terms of social rights, they have, in many cases, more than equality. And social conditioning is working on people to create a more pc environment to protect womens sensibilities.
In this particular case people just want them to stop being reduced to how they look. That has nothing to do with childcare rights etc.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement