:snip:
http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/2010/08/devil-is-sexist.html
:snip:
I read the article, seems ok though I really hate the "the idiots are ruining everything" viewpoint, because of course we are to assume the author himself is not such a creature and its just the faceless masses that are. Just strikes me as elitist and overly cynical personally. As far as the sexism thing goes, the main thing that caught my eye was his comment about despising those who consider women sexual objects and "...that includes those people who dress up like sexual objects in public places...". Seeing as this would include women as well, I have a question for anyone out there who wants to answer.
Do women who dress in a revealing matter deserve some sexual objectification? In other words, are women who show a lot of skin basically asking to be looked at for their bodies, rather then who they are?
Here is another quote from a guest commenter:
"...And this is where this feminist takes issue with you. In the right context, choosing to be a sexual object can be a lot of fun-- and there's nothing wrong with that. Being used -as- a sexual object, on the other hand, is not. What I mean by this, is that there is a significant difference between consciously choosing to present in a way that's sexually provocative in your culture, and having women's bodies used as a means to an end by others. It comes down to personal agency."
Perhaps I should define what objectification means and which is right and wrong. Based on the commenter's quote, it is sexual use, that is to say a man for example who sleeps with a woman simply for her body and afterwards walks away, that is the true evil. It is ok, as long as the woman initiates it (double standard?), for her to "look" like a sexual object, but not "be" one. Objectification itself as implied is being treated sexually, whether visually or otherwise, as the most important part of that person. My definition is similar, but I wish to refine what is right and wrong with my own view, but before I get into that I would like to explain my question a bit.
The reason I ask the question is because I've always been curious if others who hold to equality viewpoints and who would typically be against sexual objectification would oppose or support women who basically objectify, at least visually, themselves. Of course, the objectifing oneself part is debatable, as in some cases like hot weather men and women both will wear clothing that shows the body for simple heat relief. I have also been told by one woman that wore a simple tank top that she considered it comfortable, and didn't see in sexual terms. On the other hand, some women clearly wear things that expose a lot of cleavage and other skin in environments where it is not neccessary, such as an air-conditioned office workplace, and it is difficult to argue that such clothing is simply "comfortable".
Personally I have always had a problem with the idea that men should not look at women sexually first even if they themselves are portraying themselves that way. My view is that women who dress themselves in a provocative way shouldn't be surprised if they are looked at for their bodies rather then their minds, nor should those around them condemn the men who do look in this matter as "shallow", when the women are themselves dressing and portraying themselves as "shallow".
This is not to say that such women cannot be valued for something other then their bodies, I have met women who dressed in such a manner but I came to like their personality or beliefs in addition to their body. What I am arguing against is the idea that somehow all sexual objectification is bad. If a man comes on or comments on (in a reserved way) a woman who dresses provactively, this is not wrong, even if she doesn't neccessarily approve. He is responding to what is essentially an advertisement. HOWEVER, if he continues to harrass her after she has made clear that she doesn't desire his attention, then he crosses into sleazebag territory, with his actions essentially criminal in nature.
In the end, as the commenter said, it depends on personal agency. A woman should be able to freely dress as she likes, without legal or social sanctions, like being called a whore or being stoned to death (*cough* religious law *cough*). On the other hand, a man should be able to look at and even express his desire, again in a way that tries to avoid being intimidating or callous, without sanction. The woman in question is free to reject any advances he makes, and cry harrassment if he continues coming on to her or making comments, but he should be able to look as he likes and that should not be considered "rude".
