Published: Tuesday, July 9 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
Yes, the objectification of women is wrong. Women must be seen as whole and
autonomous individuals, not just a collection of parts.Please take
note that when you view women as little more than a uterus you're also
objectifying them, denying their wholeness, and denying their autonomy.Both types of objectifying attitudes about women derive from a common belief
that women are primarily defined by their capacity for reproduction, and not by
their intelligence, heart and ambition. Both types of sexism are equally wrong.
I don't disagree with many of the thoughts in this opinion..... but the
author's point of view taints her own vision. It is pointed out by her
comment "Even mannequins are sexist, the boy figures shown in work-worthy or
athletic poses. "Athletic poses? What does she mean by
this.... posing like catching a football, or swinging a racquet? Perhaps in
full run? Does she not realize this is just the mirror image of what she is
claiming about the objectification of women. If a male'a athletic shape
is emphasized..... it is good. If a female is likewise positioned.... it is
not?Boys/Men are increasingly becoming subject of the same issues
women are. Men are becoming equally obsessed with making sure they have the
"look". But the truth is most men and boys aren't athletes. THey
may be good at math, cook, write, or just participate in activities that
don't give them chiseled abs. What man really needs to have a P90x body to
be a good father? As a society, be are becoming more obsessed by
those things superficial, male and female alike.
Then let's empower women to own their own sexuality by bringing sex out
into the light as a topic of healthy discussion. We also need to wrest it from
the clutch of old clerics who seek to continue to subjugate women.
I'm sure this was published with good intentions, but as long as you
support policies that give women lesser pay for equal work while policing their
reproductive lives, this is nothing but crocodile tears.
I work in an industry that has been totally destroyed by people who have taken
and then sold photos (weddings, athletic teams, dance groups) for "pin
money". They needed an extra $25 or $50, so they sold something whose true
cost was $250 or $500 at a loss. They drove out honest business owners who had
to pay for a license, a studio, a receptionist, advertising, vehicle expense,
cameras, film, and processing.Women have been abused, but they had
allowed themselves to be abused. Some of them work for "pin money".
Their spouse brings in the income. They just want a "little extra" to
buy some of the things that fulfill their dreams.No person, man or
woman, should ever be a "sex object". And, no person, man or woman,
should ever decrease the "value" of goods or services just because they
want a little "pin money".Fairness requires that each of us
look carefully and determine whether we are part of the problem. We need to
know whether we "sell" ourselves for "pin money".
Mike Richards,Pin money? Really? I'm almost 60 and that term
hasn't been regularly used during my lifetime. Most younger readers
probably don't even know what you're talking about.But
then, I don't think you really know what you're talking about.
"Women ... have allowed themselves to be abused"?
MIke, I am not really sure what your are with this. If a "Pro"
can't differentiate their product enough from what the average joe can
do... well yeah, their value is going to decrease. It has happened in many
industries. Take travel. It used to be that we relied on travel agents to
book our travel. No one is crying a river for all the closed travel agents
because average people can now book their own travel on line. There simply was
not enough value in what the travel agents were doing. Yes, a few good ones
survived.... but those of modest value\talent... are gone. But
what has that to do with the objectification of people. Are you contenting
that if these people who objectify themselves were only making more money,
problem solved? I don't think that is what you are saying. Yes, there
are models on sites like Modelmayhem that work for almost nothing..... but
there are people who show off more flesh for free, every day... outside of the
industry. The problem is how to we value other people, and what
for. "Looks" seems to be far to important as to judges someones today.
@ Blue,I think that I must have written something that you
didn't understand.We all accept the fact that kids selling
lemonade for ten cents don't have any business sense. We buy from them and
tip them a dollar, not because their product is worth $1.10, but because we love
children.When adults use that same logic to price a product and that
same logic destroys an industry, who is to blame? People always buy the product
that costs the least. They don't care whether the person providing that
product will be in business next week or next year. They just want a
bargain.Men who view "parts of bodies" just want a
"bargain". They want to be pleased, no matter the true cost to the
provider. They want something of great value for the lowest possible price.
In our society, women are often caught in that trap. They want a
little "pin money", so they sell something of great value for "pin
money". Strong families are the first defense against that
"selling". True worth has nothing to do with appearances or with
"selling short". We are children of Deity. We all need to
act like it.
Does anyone else remember the City Creek Center "Make It Yours" ad
campaign? The ads featured sexual imagery of immodestly-dressed women in
seductive poses holding wine glasses. The hypocrisy of the Mormon church
astounds. Not a day passes without an anti-porn message from the church, yet it
had no problem using pornography to sell its multibillion-dollar megamall.
I'm sure the Desnews won't publish this comment because the truth
hurts and sometimes isn't faith-promoting.
I appreciate there are still people out in the world who still have moral
values. I'm grateful that this author points out the problems we face as a
society. It's too bad that the world is so degrading and dehumanizing
people in general. People have value and we need to defend it - we are all
worth something of more value than anything this world can offer or buy.
Let's not debase ourselves to a lower standard just because that is the
current trend. Trends come and go. Standards should not be based on them or
they too will come and go. Higher standards yield better behavior and better
communities. We all want our children to have the best, why don't we as a
society live for it and do the things we need to do to completely ensure the
best for them? It's because the world is lustful and selfish that we have
the problems we have today. It is way past time to turn it around.
A woman is a complex, intelligent, beautiful organism. The reach of her
influence is immeasureable. Her love and loyalty are the strengths on which this
great nation was built. She was placed on earth for her development and joy. The
activities she chooses; family, charity, art and others are part of her growth
and contribution to the world. If any organization whether political, societal
or religious impedes her growth and happiness - those involved will be held
accountable at the judgement. Encourage, protect and value the women
in your life. You will benefit more than you contribute, for a woman knows how
to give and sacrifice to bring joy to those she treasures.
@Mike Richards;Sounds to me like you're blaming the victim.
Why not blame those who would pay that "pin money" you're so
I'd like to thank this author - this perfect article ought to be sent to
every media outlet, social magazine, web sites, television show, commercial
studio, billboard company, advertising agency, you name it. What is under attack
is the very souls of our sisters, mothers, daughters, wives, friends, - every
woman. And all for money, lust, popularity, and power. This is the
truth - the modern-day assault on women. What a dead-on description this is of
the current situation in our culture. Thank you again.
Mike, I think you're the one who doesn't understand. If a person can
perform the same job for $25 that you charge $250 to do, there are only three
possibilities:1. Your product isn't significantly better than the
other person's.2. Your overhead is too high.3. You're
being greedy.I own a business - our primary competitors are cheap Chinese
knock-offs. I can't compete with them on price. So how do I stay in
business? Because my product (and everything attached to it, like customer
service) is so superior that my customers will pay my higher prices.Now back to the matter at hand: I agree that women are objectified. That
said, women need to admit their own role in their own objectification. If you
don't want to be seen as nothing but a collection of body parts, don't
dress like a collection of body parts. That goes for you too, LDS girls.
Modesty doesn't just mean covering your shoulders...if your shirt's so
tight that I can see every hair follicle through it, it's not modest.
Wow...I hope the author feels better after that mostly useless rant. This
isn't a hard topic to understand...many men want to have sex with a woman
and women for thousands of years have been using whatever advantage they have to
obtain the best mate/father for their offspring. Should we be surprised that men
typically seek out the most attractive (as defined by the then current society)
and women--knowing this--adorn and present themselves in such a manner as to get
attention. Birds and bees 101. Want to fix it? Have the courage to toss away the
lipstick, hairspray, nail polish, perfume, curlers, padded/push up bra, high
heels, hose, earrings, etc etc etc. But don't talk out of both sides of
your mouth. If you want to be treated by others for your intellectual,
emotional, or spiritual assets, then step into a man's world and be
reckoned with sans the standard disguise and props. Otherwise, just accept that
it is women that decide how they will present themselves and don't skirt
the responsibility by saying it's what men want. Woman up.
Oh, I see, Mike Richards,This is more about YOUR LOSS of money.You
are somewhat lacking in your understanding of woman. Massive
generalizations never have any credibility.
@Mike.... your second post makes a lot more sense.... much better phrased than
the first one.Your first post is all about weekend warrior
photographers - who many can frankly shoot better than a lot of the so called
pros. "Real" photographers have absolutely nothing to worry about.
Production photographers should be concerned.But yes.... there is a
real problem with "free" porn on the internet. I don't understand
why anyone would give away something of so much value - for nothing. I agree we
have a generational problem where so many think things should just be free...
without any reflection of the cost to the owner of what ever it is.... music,
intellectual property, what ever it may be.
You may have a point but....me thinks you protest too much.
Save the women and children first is simply shorthand for kill the menyes
objectifying women is wrong - but is it any more wrong than brutalizing boys who
are supposed to take it like a man?It is annoying to see gratuitous female
nudity in movies - yet where is the outrage over the disproportionate number of
men who are gratuitously killed and maimed in film?pornography that
air brushes women into impossible beauty is wrong - but is it really any worse
than the female pornography of romance novels that play to base female fantasies
and present men in an equally inane and impossible light?the problem
with modern feminist thought is that it is so dependent on victim power that it
cannot see beyond it - feminists cannot acknowledge that anyone else is a victim
(or that they can be a perpetrator) without fear that their power source will be
dilutedabusing women is wrong - but assuming it is any more wrong than
abusing men is exactly how passive aggressive feminists try to have it both ways
- preference or equality; depending on which is most convenient to the current
power needwhat about your boys?
The article is about a woman's self esteem, And Mike Richards makes
it about the loss of HIS money.Telling, isn't it?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments