General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWomen need to step up to the plate if they want to stop objectifcation
The super model industry features models that are 5-10 to 6-1 fee tall and have slender builds. This is a purposeful choice from a marketing point of view, and industry, because this is what most females perceive to be beautiful not men. The female customer dominates spending on female clothing and lingerie. It is extremely rare, by the numbers, that males are compelled to buy female clothing because they are not the target audience. If men were the target audience the super models would be 5-5, and curvier.
We as men can assist in stopping objectification, but women must be the driving force to change the fashion industry because they are the biggest spender. Women must vote with their wallets to create real change because talking down to males about how objectification is bad doesn't solve the core problem..it just punts it down the line.
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)make it stop!
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Objectification is a notion central to feminist theory. It can be roughly defined as the seeing and/or treating a person, usually a woman, as an object. In this entry, the focus is primarily on sexual objectification, objectification occurring in the sexual realm. Martha Nussbaum (1995, 257) has identified seven features that are involved in the idea of treating a person as an object:
instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier's purposes;
denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination;
inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity;
fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects;
violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity;
ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold);
denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)sexuality. what you did was tell me what it wasnt then went on to tell me about objectification. im not trying to harrass but i would like to know what your definition of sexuality is. not the dictionary entry but your definition
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)then I suggest you do some research...
Objectivity is most certainly NOT sexuality....but here I can define for you what it ISN'T:
Objectification is a notion central to feminist theory. It can be roughly defined as the seeing and/or treating a person, usually a woman, as an object. In this entry, the focus is primarily on sexual objectification, objectification occurring in the sexual realm. Martha Nussbaum (1995, 257) has identified seven features that are involved in the idea of treating a person as an object:
instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier's purposes;
denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination;
inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity;
fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects;
violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity;
ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold);
denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)it's not that hard, i'd like to know what your definition of sexuality is and not what it isnt
Dorian Gray
(13,516 posts)there are certain people who are objectifying objectification threads!
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You cannot objectify an object, a thread is an object...but that shows you level of understanding this subject....
Objectification is a notion central to feminist theory. It can be roughly defined as the seeing and/or treating a person, usually a woman, as an object. In this entry, the focus is primarily on sexual objectification, objectification occurring in the sexual realm. Martha Nussbaum (1995, 257) has identified seven features that are involved in the idea of treating a person as an object:
instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier's purposes;
denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination;
inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity;
fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects;
violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity;
ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold);
denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.
Dorian Gray
(13,516 posts)This OP was tiresome.
And so is your over the top response.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Dorian Gray
(13,516 posts)I was being sarcastic about another thread about women being objectified needs to be stopped by women themselves. The OP was obnoxious. I was being silly and dismissive of the whole topic created by Harmony Blue..... I never asked any questions regarding objectivism.
The inanity of my first post shouldn't require being lectured as a response.
I was responding to someone saying Make these posts stop with nonsense. It appears other people realized the nonsensical nature of my post. You're the only one who responded angrily.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)oh wait, it's not. It's flame bait.
hlthe2b
(102,491 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)The support of so many good men and women these past few days/weeks here on DU overwhelms the whiney poor me blame the women folks.
you lost.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)RBStevens
(227 posts)"If men were the target audience the super models would be 5-5, and curvier."
Are you saying that this is what men *want*?
GeorgeGist
(25,326 posts)It's about 'branding' Olympic athletes.
Oops: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024550503#op
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)Good God.
>>>CLICK<<<
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)But I think you undermine what is a legitimate topic for discussion by the way you couched the argument. Rather than pose the issue in a way that makes it clear this is a continuation of the objectification debate (and in a rather accusatory tone towards women), why not just post the topic as sufficient unto itself if the aim is to foster a cogent debate?
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Like the SI cover models?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I can tell you with absolute certainty that this model wasn't chosen to sell stuff to men.
Say what you will about the SI bikini models, but they at least appear healthy.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)I think that's called "heroin-chic". At the very least, it's anorexic.
And take it from me. The vast majority of men don't find that attractive at all.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
PasadenaTrudy
(3,998 posts)exactly how my sister looked when she was on heroin back in the 1970s...
cui bono
(19,926 posts)And it's still setting up that as an ideal for young women to aspire to which leads to a whole lot of eating disorders.
I don't know when/where that pic is from, but I remember reading a few years ago that a few cities were not allowing such underweight models to walk the runway any more.
JustAnotherGen
(32,000 posts)Handbag.
Thanks lumberjack!
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)BainsBane
(53,112 posts)First we are prudes and now it's all women's fault. You really are the limit.
JustAnotherGen
(32,000 posts)A trip down memory lane was very enlightening yesterday
My friend - keep calm and buy a new handbag. Then post it at DU. And then I'll post a pic of my newest Bagghy handbag. Hilarity and laughter will ensue. You deserve it for the good fight you've fought here lately!
And the same people who tout SI as the highest of high fashion advice sure did give you a lot of shit back in the day. Just saying . . . but it's OUR fault ya know?
*merrily making mischief that I believe BainsBane will 'get'*
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Quelle surprise!
ismnotwasm
(42,022 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)and move on with your life
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)I just wanna have fun. Really. That's all. Like the message of this old feminist video from the 80's.
demmiblue
(36,911 posts)Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)is at the point of ridiculousness, pathetic, and trolling.
Seriously. Is anyone really going to change their minds from these types of threads?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You have been one of the main culprits going around from thread to thread denying it...
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Don't you sleep? You seem to be around, around the clock. Or are there several of you to be around? I'm noticing these things. I'm asking is all. Things seem rather strange to me.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and I work from home....
Is that the pattern you failed to consider?
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)not what women perceive to be beautiful. It's not up to men either. It is decided by the fashion industry.
Girls and young women aspire to that standard because they would like to be fashion models someday... much like young males want to be professional sports stars... to have the big money and fame that goes with it.
Yes, other females copy the model standard too, but it is in more of an unfocused way "just because" others regard it highly now too, because of the original reason stated above.
Women did not decide this.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)2 of them from posters other than yourself.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I honestly do believe that progressive-minded people need to step up and do their part, not just men, and not even just women, but *both* genders.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)you keep trying....and keep failing! EPICALLY!
Why don't you just listen to actual WOMEN! The vast majority have been trying to educate you...
denial is NOT a river in Egypt.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)over and over....in THIS iteration you are trying to blame women themselves...in another conversation about male privilege you seemed to understand racism....but discount sexism apparently...(btw blaming women for it is EXACTLY like blaming Black people for racism...)
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)What I said was, I think progressive-minded people from both genders need to solve these problems, *together*. There was NO denial of sexism OR objectification anywhere in any of my posts.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)duh..you AGREED!
This isn't happening in a vacuum....you are going from thread to thread to spread this bunk...You seem to have a mission...
You cannot go from place to place to deny there is White Male Privilege And then go agree with a thread that blames women for objectification and think No one will notice your AGENDA!
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Of course, I could potentially be wrong but I didn't get the impression he was blaming women for objectification.
You cannot go from place to place to deny there is White Male Privilege And then go agree with a thread that blames women for objectification and think No one will notice your AGENDA!
I don't have an agenda, and that's the problem.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)others in this thread if you bothered to read them instead of looking for more places to post your sexist statements also said EXACTLY that....if you read instead you might learn something FROM women....
Me thinks thou protesteth too much....
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)According to whom, exactly?
"your sexist statements also said EXACTLY that"
Proof, please.
Me thinks thou protesteth too much.....
I could honestly have said the same thing to you.....but in that case, it'd actually have some merit to it.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Other people in this thread....called this OP that....and YOU agreed with the OP...THATS what I was talking about...
Now stop playing these games you are playing.....I have learned even more about this situation recently at DU. I ain't buying this "they are not really sexist" or not trying to use sexual intimidation against women of this Forum....NOT ANYMORE!
THAT is exactly what is going on.....and either you are part of it....or you are an Ally!
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)"THATS what I was talking about..."
That wasn't clear, TBH; it seemed like you were accusing me of saying stuff.
Anyway, I realize I'm not perfect.....but I do try. Take that as you will.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)by creating a hostile environment...
I know realize the situation is MUCH worse than a few dunderheaded men that just do not understand the plights of other people...
Oh its much more than that....THIS has been a concerted effort to stifle the voices of women on DU. That is what a hostile environment does...
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I'm honestly afraid that you're quite mistaken, V.R. There *is no* conspiracy/"concerted effort"/etc. to silence women on DU. There never has been(just as there's no widespread racism on DU, etc.). Do you think Skinner & EarlG would put up with such a thing if it were happening? (FWIW, BennyBoy seems to have been banned recently for misogyny)
A few idiots spewing B.S. on occasion doesn't equal vast conspiracy.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)this behavior....
to want to be able to carry it into GD IS nothing more than an excuse for sexual intimidation....its the same cast of characthers...
Don't tell me I don't know when "sexism" is occurring....you SIR wouldn't know it if slapped you in the face.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I've been thru there a few times. And no doubt there's some idiocy there.
Don't tell me I don't know when "sexism" is occurring....you SIR wouldn't know it if slapped you in the face.
Never once claimed or implied that, anyway. All I said is that there's no vast concerted conspiracy to silence women on DU(if there was, you can bet I'd be yelling about it all day!). And there isn't, really. There may be a few morons out there, but that's all.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)or maybe not....
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Maybe you've heard of Dave Futrelle's site by now, btw? If not, he's supposed to be one of the best MRA debunkers there is out there.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Yes, I understand there have been a few problems on DU. Given the fact that this is kind of a big tent site, we're going to have a few malcontents here and there; not much we can do about that except deal with those who cross into trolling, like Bennyboy did.
However, again, there is a lot worse that could be seen than just a few morons spouting off on an otherwise rather civilized and progressive site. I pointed to Dave Futrelle's ManBoobz site because he has done a lot of research on MRAs and stuff and some of the B.S. screeds he's dug up that's been coming out of joints such as "A Voice for Men" and Heartiste are far worse than anything I've ever seen here; in fact, even the Men's Group probably wouldn't tolerate most of what's written in these places. In case you haven't visited it already, here's the URL
http://manboobz.com
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #28)
Post removed
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Soundman
(297 posts)That's how I feel, what are you going to do to change my mind? Yourself and other seemingly like minded people have espoused a theory. A theory that may or may not be true. And anyone who chooses to see things differently are berated, ganged up upon and generally reverse objectified. Too bad you can't see it. Seems to me the cause would be better served by building a consensus among those affected before slinging shit upon everyone else who doesn't buy into or even understand the theory.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)you probably shouldn't be lecturing those same women on their tone and lack of politeness. "Be nice or I'll call you derogatory names" doesn't suggest anything other than a stunning lack of maturity.
Polite women seldom make history.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)the dust.
Kali
(55,027 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)This is the look that has been promoted by the fashion industry and the media for decades.
Look at the guys of Abercrombie and Fitch. Walking past their store you can see a huge photo generally of some incredibly skinny yet muscular, very young, photoshopped teen guy or guys. Same thing happens with women. The female models selected are also very young, slim and photoshopped to look like the perfect ideal of the men that run the fashion industry. The reason teen models are chosen, is because teens undergo a growth spurt during which the body growing upwards very quickly, and the body attempts to catch up to a normal weight but not quite as quickly (unless the teen eats mass quantities of food), and so it often looks skinny. They are also chosen because their face still retains a childlike quality it hasn't yet grown out of.
Media uses these picture-messages, and media surrounds us; it's ubiquitous, like oxygen, and we cannot escape it. It takes a gargantuan effort to not be subliminally swayed what the media dictates all around us, and by the rest of the population which has also swayed subliminally. Even if we did make the effort to resist, that effort would fail in light of the fact that we are even limited to buying products which are offered pursuant to the media's dictates. Here's an example of how you can't resist: would you wear knickers and a top hat to work? Of course not. You wish to fit in, and it might hamper your success in every sphere were you to ignore the dictates of the media, and therefore society. Same with everything else in society. We are slaves to the media, whether we like it or not.
Here's what Marshall McLuhan said that the media does to our brains:
Ideally, advertising aims at the goal of a programmed harmony among all human impulses and aspirations and endeavors. Using handicraft methods, it stretches out toward the ultimate electronic goal of a collective consciousness.
At first, people were highly skeptical of this assertion. However, this was later shown to be the case in numerous studies which have been carried out since. What's odd is that we need studies to believe it, and don't even notice the effect of the media upon us all. The easiest way to understand this is this: if we lived in a cave for 10 years and then returned to society, we would return to a society living by what the media has been promoting - the styles, the fads, the manner of speaking, the habits, etc.
Sure, we select one or two topics and protest those, but in most everything else, we are victims of the media because we are social animals.
Men are subject to the media and society's dictates just as much as women are. For ex., recently I heard some young guy say that Marilyn Monroe was "fat," and other young guys agreed. Marilyn Monroe? Fat? Really? But the cadaver, x-ray look is "in" because it has been promoted since the 60s through marketing, and our eyes have already grown accustomed to the cadaver look.
Same with teen models. We can see photoshopped teen models of 14, 15, 16 and 17 modeling clothing for women in their 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s, and it amazes me to no end. Models (both male and female) are required to starve themselves if they are to maintain a modeling career. Yet this is the standard our eyes have seen for decades, and we all believe these things are achievable. It's truly insane.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Actually, the skinniness is for the cameras that adds weight and the height for the runway so they can be seen. It just works that way. I haven't noticed men complaining because basketball players are unusually tall or football players unusually dense and heavy
seattledo
(295 posts)It's a sport for people that want heros of normal sizes.
Response to seattledo (Reply #37)
Cleita This message was self-deleted by its author.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)It objectifies the woman by portraying her as a thing to be served-up for consumption presumably by a man; hence the expression, "I want a sandwich, woman." No doubt this includes the sexual entendre or "eating out." It should also be noted only white bread was used to devour a white woman. Obviously the palate in question is not accustomed to anything non-white; leading us to conclude there is a racist component as well.
How'd I do? Do I sound like them?
Skittles
(153,261 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Which is the product of a society wanting to keep women psychologically and physically subordinate to men.
You don't seem to have the foggiest idea what it means to objectify.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)You might be surprised by what they can bench press.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)kind by others.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Which is a central subject to this discussion. It would be like someone who has no concept of calculus trying to argue with me about the rules of derivatives.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)what would you know about that?
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Does all of this seem like a joke to you?
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Is that serious enough for you?
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)Yet no one seriously wants to read my post on it and give it a kick. If the oil companies have their way we all suffer and your little problems with image that most real women don't have time to worry about will be screwed. All of us together.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Rather than a sincere suggestion that caring about female sexual, social and economic equality isn't a subject of worry for most "real women."
Cleita
(75,480 posts)May I ask you a question seriously? Do you guys work in shifts? It seems like you and Vanilla rhapsody are on at the same time.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)there is a nuclear plant involved but you haven't answered my serious question. I answered yours so you kind of owe me the courtesy.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Because I don't know who you're talking about when you say "we."
Cleita
(75,480 posts)That's okay. It was a lame attempt on my part to get you to admit something you can't or don't want to.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)I post on this subject because it is important to me, not because I've been told to do so by anyone else.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Ever since your friends did the virtual gang bang alerts on me I started to notice. I'm probably wrong so I'm asking. I try to be fair rather than accuse so I'm asking.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)What you may be perceiving as sharing shifts is simply the product of many posters working certain hours in different time zones.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I don't know how anyone STILL can't understand objectification of women and its implications.
It's long past the time when this issue started being talked about. And by long past I mean decades. Please catch up. Women don't need your mockery.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)me have me on ignore. It it seems they would rather play with me than ignore me.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Though you seem to be. If you don't take something seriously why do you keep posting in threads about the subject when you know others do take it seriously.
You mention your fracking thread... how would you like it if people came in there and made fun of that subject? It's clearly a serious issue. If someone came in and ridiculed it and was rude to you and others who cared about it and are affected by it how would you like that?
Objectification of women is a serious issue with serious implications. Why do you keep feeling the need to ridicule it?
Cleita
(75,480 posts)It would have traffic and people would be outraged at the stupidity but then they would learn something. Please go into the fracking thread, make fun of it. Be prepared for the derision, but save our planet.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I wouldn't go in and make fun of it when I was ignorant about it. I would read it and learn.
Why don't you care about saving women's rights then? Or are you just ignorant and making fun of it even though you don't understand the issue? It's one or the other because it is a real issue.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)I responded to your post directly then asked you why you don't care about women's rights. You are spending a lot of time in a lot of threads arguing against them.
How is it red herrings and straw men?
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Do it. I need your scorn
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Fine. I'm not surprised. Not surprised by your lack of comprehension exhibited by this last post of yours either. I made it clear that I know fracking is an issue and have no desire to ridicule it. Your post makes absolutely no sense.
Still wondering about the red herrings and straw men accusation. If you feel like answering be sure to include the previous questions' answers as well.
Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #51)
leftyohiolib This message was self-deleted by its author.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)All it would do is just objectify women based on a different set of criteria.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)blueamy66
(6,795 posts)I shouldn't be allowed to find clothes to fit me???????
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Sometimes I wonder about the women here who don't support other women.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)are offering pants that fit my 36" inseam.
I remember, as a teenager, searching forever to find a pair of jeans/pants that were long enough.
The OP pisses me off.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)I'm 5' 1" and most pants are too long on me if I gain some weight. So I have to stay thin to find clothes that fit me. But I love the fashion shows with all the lovely tall girls and clothes.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)You really cannot add fabric. 😄
MineralMan
(146,345 posts)cool-looking paisley fabric on the legs. OTOH, that was not one of the better style memes of that period.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)Old Navy, Gap, Lucky, AZ Jean Company, Cruel Girl, A&F, Banana Republic, among others, have tall girl lengths now. It's quite nice to be able to buy a pair of jeans that is long enough.
I remember stealing my brother's Levi button-ups as a teenager....
MineralMan
(146,345 posts)Women are taller on average today than they were when I was in high school, I think. My HS girlfriend, though, was 5' 11". Back then, if she wanted to wear jeans, men's jeans were the only ones that would fit. I was 6' 2" in HS, and she cleverly stole a pair of my 501s by borrowing them and never quite returning them.
These days, lots of women are tall. I'm not sure why that is, though.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)It's funny, cause when I played ball in HS and college, 5'11" was tall. Now, when I go watch my old HS basketball games, I feel short!!!! Yeah!!!!!
It's so cool to be tall now!!!
MineralMan
(146,345 posts)I'm a bit shorter than that now, at age 68, but I've noticed that men are taller on average than they once were. Of course, back in high school, when I was a 6'2" kid, my waist size was 28. I was a skinny kid. Today, not so much.
So, those 501s fit my girl friend pretty well. She looked cute in them, but she looked cute in pretty much anything, as I remember, looking through my old man memory glasses. LOL!
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)Now I have filled out and long for the skinny days.
501s rock!
Cleita
(75,480 posts)hard to get them even.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)I used to scour the racks for pants with big hems and then take them to the tailor to have the hem let out.
Banana Republic will do it for free.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)and I have to stay reasonably thin.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)please explain whyyyyy.......!
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Many times actually.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)You are right. I'm wrong. Are you happy now?
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)I gain no schadenfreude from your inability to understand what it is that I'm saying. It's actually extremely frustrating.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)it's possible people will know what you are talking about. Right now, you make no sense.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Just pick a post and I'll try my best to explain it more plainly and to the point.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Comedian's love this.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)And I'll try my best to restate them in a fashion that can be better understood.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)hate your fellow women who use their sexuality to earn a living?
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)It's not about the women, it's about society and the men who objectify women.
If you really want answers and to understand this issue better read these entire threads:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024522226
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024528423
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125538236
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024548058
Response to Cleita (Reply #75)
Post removed
Cleita
(75,480 posts)I'm 74 years old, lived through a lot, and you benefit a lot from what we opened out for you. But frankly I don't think a whole lot of you are women. I know a lot of women, always have and none think like y'all. I'm really just asking. Prove me wrong.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)You don't have a clue how old I am. For all you know I'm 92.
What do you want me to prove? That I'm a woman? What do you want me to do, post a selfie of my tits while holding a newspaper with today's date on it and a word you tell me to write to prove it's me?
Jesus. You've lost it.
And guess what. I know a lot of women that think exactly like this. And I learned how to think like this over 30 years ago. I don't care how old you are, you absolutely do not understand the issue of objectification. You make it very clear in your posts.
And knowing that so many on here, both women and men, think sexism is a big issue in society and that misogyny is running unchecked here on DU, why is it so important to you to argue against it, to try to make people believe it doesn't exist? Why? It's very curious. Do you do that with racism and homophobia as well or is it just sexism?
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)but insinuate that a female poster is mentally ill for describing the harassment she and others have experienced, ("I think you people are sick...Really, what sick world do you live in?" and telling her that her only purpose is to be mean when said female poster explains why she objects to the posting of the SI SI cover, not to mention saying that harassment is only a problem because the victims "allow it to happen"... that isn't hating women? Apparently, the poster to whom you're replying doesn't think so.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)But I'm not holding my breath.
Would really like to know why it's so important to her to discredit something that is a known societal problem.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)Apparently having experienced harassment and sexism, now that that isn't a personal problem, who wants to care about those who experience it today?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)The man-hater meme seems to be out in full force, as well, and not only with this poster. That's always telltale.
Not meaning to sound like a broken record, but a lot of this engaging looks like a way to get posts hidden by trying to tease out conversation that turns personal. It's already happened several times in this thread alone.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)What, I should start eating and stop exercising so I can, at the very least, gain weight to fit your desirable parameters? Because you know that I cannot change my height, right?
I went through many years of taunting about my height. Now, at 47, I embrace it. because this is what most females perceive to be beautiful not men Says who? Guys love it....not that it matters to me (well, okay, I like some of the attention). I prefer men to enjoy my personality.
Just this morning, in a convenience store, a guy said "excuse me, basketball player, would you like to step ahead of me in line"? Really???? 20 years ago, it would have irked me. Today I just smiled.
Yeah, this OP pisses me off to no end.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)Keep us arguing, period, always.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)They are stepping up to the plate, and catching hell for it. Time for the rest of us to pull our weight, too.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)What would be left to buy?
The industry is run by men. Women didn't necessarily decide that is the ideal woman, if they did please provide a citation.
By Cherise Luter Tue., Dec. 31 2013 at 10:00 AM
Categories: Fashion, Style/Fashion
When people think about the fashion industry and the individuals at the helm, most immediately imagine veterans like Anna Wintour, Diana Vreeland or Coco Chanel. No one ever thinks of names like Frank A Bennack Jr head of Hearst Corp. parent company of Elle Magazine or Michael J. Dolan head of IMG the producer of Mercedes Benz Fashion Week. While women continue to be the face of or the creative behind major brands, men are still holding the purse strings and, in some cases, puppet strings.
Much like other major industries, the number of prominent women in fashion seem to fall off at executive level and those serving in a lead executive capacity as CEOs or presidents are few and far between. Of the 94 names included in Business of Fashion's popular Top 500 List in the Executive Category, only 15 are women, which a stark contrast to the more creative categories of editors and designers. If one does a little bit of digging, you will find male heads behind some of the most iconic female lead brands.
Charles Townsend is the head of a little media group called Condé Nast. As such, he oversees the publishing of women's magazines Allure, Lucky, Vanity Fair, WWD and, of course, Vogue. All of which have a female editor-in-chief and majority female editorial team. This guy is Anna Wintour's boss.
As the chairman & CEO of LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton (LVMH), Bernard Arnault is responsible for the global expansion of Céline famously headed by Phoebe Philo since 2010 and Donna Karan International. The LVMH portfolio also includes over 15 other accessories and beauty brands, including Sephora.
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/artattack/2013/12/do_women_really_run_the_fashio.php
Dorian Gray
(13,516 posts)for the most part, stayed away from the supermodel/SI brouhaha. I find it pedantic and annoying. And I don't give a shit whether sexy models are on the cover of a magazine, to be honest. I thought that the outrage over it was over the top and annoying.
HOWEVER, so is the response. Being lectured on what we have to do to stop objectification... unasked for? WTF?
You are just looking for a highly trafficked OP at this point, aren't you? A flamefest, continuing the same arguments for no sake other than continuing the same argument?
I like clothing and will buy what I want to buy. And if it's any indication, Lena Dunham was the cover of the last Vogue. That's primarily sold to women. Who was on the cover of the Sports Illustrated Bikini edition, primarily sold to men????
So perhaps you might want to stop the lecture about objectification. ::Eyeroll::
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)nt
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)they call the plus sized but at least they use them
that's one thing that's never made sense - how do you know how clothes will look on you and thus be inspired to buy them as likely to make you look good, if you only see them on unusual sized people?
JustAnotherGen
(32,000 posts)to buy clothing again.
And *sigh* the men of DU are not who I discuss fashion with.
As well - the "I'm not into self adornment" women at DU who look down on folks who would never buy a bag at Target (and the woman who wouldn't is sooooo me and she rocks !) - are not women who need to lecture me on where I should be looking for swimsuits.
And I'll stop buying $400 handbags and $1200 dollar Ralph Lauren black label dresses when the techie types at DU commit to never buying laptop, iphone, tablet, etc. etc. ever again in order to reduce slave labor in China. That's not gonna happen!
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)nt
JustAnotherGen
(32,000 posts)Not me!
alp227
(32,073 posts)So should black and Latino people stand up for themselves instead of the right wing media that incites bigotry against them day after day? Muslims stand up for themselves against the Islamophobia industry? What a shitty thread. I wish DU was more politically correct at times.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)I blame the fucking fashion designers. Many of whom are men. They want women with the "Dachau look", so their clothes "hang correctly."
I blame the model scouts, too. Women and men. Watch this excerpt from ABC. These poor teenage girls who are candidate models are so skinny, I could practically put both hands around their waist. And they were still having weigh-ins and measurements.
A Not So Glamorous Model Life
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/glamorous-model-life-young-aspiring-models-severe-pressures-teens-women-nightline-14524006
Dirty Socialist
(3,252 posts)By judging prospective husbands by how much money they make. Sorry, but that's the truth.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Let's try it.
Black people need to step up to the plate if they want to end white racism.
Hispanics need to step up to the plate to end immigration discrimination.
Poor people need to step up to the plate to end income inequality.
Women need to step up to the plate to end rape.
Soldiers need to step up to the plate to end veteran homelessness.
The onus is not on the victims of objectification to end it, we should speak out about it at all times.
The objectifiers need to stop objectifying most of all.
Just like rapists need to stop raping.
Just like society needs to work on veterans issues.
Just like some people need to stop being racist.
Just like rich people should stop screwing the poor.
Just like how we all, everyone, needs to support immigration.
Telling us women that we need to do the bulk of the work is just punting,in my opinion.
It's your (men's) turn to do something for women without us having to march around with signs and get arrested and shit. Just f stop objectifying women or don't. But don't blame us for male objectification because some women participate in it. It's like a form of Stockholm syndrome for some, we are stuck in this male centered world and have to navigate it as best as we can.
Now, since y'all are the ones doing most of the objectifying, wouldn't it be better if WE assisted Y'ALL in stopping the objectification??
Yes. It would.
You're welcome for my assistance in helping you stop the objectification of women. I'm am fully ready to assist you in this matter at any time.
Be advised: you were talking to us women like we are a bunch of children and mansplaining that we are our own problem. You needed correction.
Have a great day, dear!!
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)<img src="" border="0" alt="Curtsey" title="Curtsey" />
librechik
(30,678 posts)Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)And literally act like they can't hear what I say???
I've heard those insults since I was a little kid. Implying that I must be "abnormal" (meaning: too smart to be normal) or stupid, or that I must not know something, which I did know.
Career advice like: Don't go into architecture, because you're a girl. Girls have trouble in architecture. Said by a licensed architect to me in the 1970s.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It's not as hard as they made it out to be.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 25, 2014, 01:57 AM - Edit history (1)
I had a bad one in high school that didn't explain things and messed me up.
My discouragements as a female from blatantly sexist statements, remind me of this guy and racist bullshit he's heard.
Read about Neil deGrasse Tyson's troubles. The man has a Ph.D. in Astrophysics from Columbia University:
At age 11 he went to talk to a teacher at P.S. 81 (NYC). The teacher asked, "Why do you want to go into science? There aren't any Negroes in that field. Why don't you go into sports?'"
Tyson was on the Harvard wrestling team as an undergraduate. He often tells the story of another African-American member of the Harvard wrestling team, Frederick T. Smith--an eventual Rhodes scholar, who intended to put his economics degree to use among impoverished communities--criticized him for devoting himself to science.
"Blacks in America do not have the luxury of your intellectual talents being spent on astrophysics," he told Tyson.
(Smith, who became an attorney in Newark, died in 2005.)
"Never before had someone so casually, yet so succinctly, indicted my life's ambitions," Tyson later wrote.
The above has been quoted from a profile in the Feb.17 & 24, 2014 New Yorker profile of Dr. Tyson called "STAR MAN".
===========
My point is not to say that sexism is worse than racism, or that racism is worse than sexism. My point is: We all have external characteristics that will make some people prejudge us negatively. And oftentimes, tell us about how and why we're inferior, in their opinion.
My opinion of people who think I'm stupid or inferior because I'm short or female or whatever: They can go to hell. Their own personal hell, that they make up with their anger they live on every day as fuel.