Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that although you have every right to engage in any innocent pleasures you choose, the problem is the objectification of women in the first place.

As I said before, the other sex has a particularly bad habit of classifying the other sex as a species of animal rather than a human being. That seems like a major problem to me. The whole make-up thing is exoticist. It is a form of chauvinism and fetishism, not intimacy which I would think is not respect for the opposite sex but a continued belittling of the other.

VideCorSpoon,



I think this, as a response, is too politically correct to be entirely serious. Do you not have a penis?



No doubt, the objectification of women can have serious implications, but enjoying watching women put on a little make-up isn't one of them.

It's a voyeuristic pleasure to be sure, and voyeurism is objectification in the sense that vision is the subjective appreciation of the object. Voyeurism can be taken to extremes, but that extreme is absent here.

Women enjoy a man taking pleasure in thier beauty - within the bounds of the consensual, and that's her call. It's like if she's walking along the street in a g-string - there's nothing pervy about looking at her asre. It's only women who don't get admired and penisless men think there is.

It can be a difficult balance to strike, but I assure you I know where the line is, and always endeavor to stay the right side of it. I assumed that would be understood.

iconoclast.

Considering this is a philosophical forum? nothing is too politically correct. Ethics and morality whatnot. I don't know how my comment would be too politically correct to be serious? There are people who do believe this way without harboring internal bias against the opposite sex.

But on the subject of political correctness, the term denotes that I would harbor understandably hurtful views that I would not necessarily share with others because they are indeed hurtful. So I keep them to myself and say something different. Is this not two faced and contrary to the truth? And is not truth the foundation of philosophy?

Is it not hypocritical to acknowledge the objectification of the opposite sex and yet allow chauvinistic perceptions in the same breath? Because we choose not to acknowledge that something is potentially hurtful, does that make it any less extreme?

Voyeurism is not a philosophical 'ism. It is a sexual disorder. The definition can be warped how it will, but it is still a disorder none the less. And why is it a disorder? Among other things, it is at the expense of the other sex. But you speak as though the perception of woman is that of an animalistic automaton, some thing concerned with the trivial matters of the opposite sex rather than their own unique personhood. But really question your own perceptions of the opposite sex. Is it non bias? But does that even factor in to the equation? that is, being un biased against the opposite sex.

But it is a difficult thing to balance. The problem indeed lies in this line you draw. It is not the fact that you may or may not cross the line. That is ok because it is a clear action of your own will, and nobody should influence that. But the problem lies in the fact that the line is constantly redrawn to allow for "just this little bit here," and "just a little bit of that won't hurt." Those "little bits" can drastically change the fair treatment of the opposite sex. The line you of speak does not exist in my world because it denotes a territory I can cross into any time or draw closer to without going over. There is no permission for lead way when it comes to these matters.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not attacking you. Only the fallacy of the argument.

Hey Vid,

I *think* I see where you're coming from. But I'd very much like to address aspects of your post that I think cheapen and skew sexuality. I agree with most of what Iron said; if I may, I think those aspects of it you found disagreeable were meant to illustrate the sentiment: Have you no natural, appreciation for the female? But I shouldn't try to speak for others.



No it's not. Although there are cases of neurosis/abnormal fixation associated with any behavior, the act of 'fixing oneself up' should not, ever, be categorically pigeonholed as this statement appears to. Of course, this is but my own opinion.



This... belittling? Do you view this as 'dirty'? Is it a lecherous and slovenly practice? I know a class of people that see all who appreciate the natural - and yes sexual - beauty of a woman as Perverted, Wrong, Sinful, Abject-slime. Is this were you're coming from? Can not sexually-based appreciation be a good, natural and productive thing? I think so...



You're equating these views to 'objectification'; and that of a class most-demeaning. So this appreciation is chauvinistic? Oh my gosh - to take something so wonderful, so filled with beauty and appreciation on both sides of the gender-coin and cheapen it into a debaucherous mindset. Ugh!



1) We are animals. 2) To appreciate aspects of our sexuality *is* programmed in, *is* good and is indeed necessary. Whether you believe we evolved through reactions or intentionally created, does not this appreciation (animalistic, as we undeniably are) enrich our interaction, procreation, interpersonal and martial bonds? 3) Our sexuality is intertwined with our personalities and concept of self. Denying this is destructive and self-defeating - it is part-and-parcel of our personhood.

Appreciation of ours (and others) sexuality is a natural, honest, fulfilling and productive part of life. It does not, I repeat, does not necessarily lead to the sort of unethical objectification of which you speak. Understanding and appreciating people, as people, giving them the respect they deserve is absolutely and unequivocally necessary; however, only two-dimensional thinking says that appreciating/acknowledging sexually-based beauty equates to this.

I hope I've spoken to this point well, and I hope you (and others) perceive the goodness in this issue as I've intended.

Thanks

Kethil,

To add anything would be to take away - so i'll just quote you:



here here!

iconoclast.

Kethil,

Yet again? we speak of females as animals. Your statement including "?natural, appreciation for the female" is yet another objectification of the female person. There is no penumbra when it comes to objectification. It is or it isn't. There are no sides in equality.

You do not agree that the make-up thing is exoticist. That is your perspective? a male perspective. I think you ignore the finer points of slathering on layers of paint to conceal your true features in an effort to look attractive for the pleasure of the opposite sex. We, the male species, could fool ourselves all we want in order to rationalize objectification, but it is an empty rationale. That you liken your perspective with the inclusion of neurosis/abnormal fixation is all the more reason to suppose that you understand women in a bias fashion.

Do you not consider "belittling" offensive? Is the belittling of one sex to another no different than as a sadist belittles a masochist? IS that not a problem for you? Furthermore, that you "know a class of people" underlines time and again the exoticist nature of many people. Is sexuality wrong? No. Is sexuality based of preconceived notions and objectification of the other sex wrong? Yes. Do you separate these two parallels? I don't think so. Also, sexual gratification and the appreciation of beauty is discussed time and again in philosophy. One need only look to Plato's Phaedrus to consider the ramifications of this type of "love." Even Socrates believed these sentiments in question as fallacious.

In your words, "...to take something so wonderful, so filled with beauty and appreciation on both sides of the gender-coin and cheapen it into a debaucherous mindset. Ugh!" (Kethil) I think we differ in our definition of? how was it so eloquently put? "Ugh." I equate "those" views of objectification in the essence and measure of equality? not chauvinism. Clearly, there is some issue to be resolved with the definition of objectification.

Your suppositions about human beings are relative. Are we animals? Maybe. But beyond that, the rest of your closing suffers from axiomatic statements that bear not thought to the relative nature of the case. I would say semantics and epideictics had a large in that statement.

Oh, don't get me wrong. Appreciation of the other sex is great. But to base that appreciation on biased forms of perception is wrong? plain and simple. Your last statement was a very decent appeal to rhetorical nullification, though you fail to understand the relative nature of the subject.

Also, you state in bold that, "only two-dimensional thinking says that appreciating/acknowledging sexually-based beauty equates to this." Now exactly who was it earlier on who referred to the two sexes as a two sided "gender-coin?"


Iconoclast,

Indeed? to say anything more would be to take away. Ironic? Perhaps.


[Also note that this is not personal, this is philosophical discourse in radical perspectives.]

VideCorSpoon,



I'm a red-blooded and decidedly obvious male - there's nothing hidden or dirty about my sexuality, thank you very much. What Kethil means by 'cheapen it into a debaucherous mindset. Ugh!' is that it's you who have seen squalor and objectification where there is only a love of something quintisentially feminine.

But hey, I'm not one to hold grudges.
iconoclast.

Iconoclast,

Vicious insults are determined by the manner in which they are interpreted. But it was not an insult per se, but rather a catalyst for the conversation. But if it was truly offensive to you, I apologize.

That the fact of "creepiness" is somewhat resolved, it does not make sense to center the issue at hand on personal biases. But suffice to say that I do not agree with your assessment, though you are fully entitled to it. Is it normal and healthy to appreciate women in the way you convey? Not to me.

I also am a male. But I am also a person with very strong convictions about any matter existential? especially about female equality. This is a classic case of the Greeks and the Calations? so it is all relative. All I see from the issue you raised with Kethil's post is that you suffer from a bias mind set. Is it right or just to point out the obvious faults or bias of others?

Videcorspoon,

Males and females are genetically different. I am not sure how familiar you are with the facts of male vs. female neurology, but we have decidedly different brain organization and emphasis. We are all animals, what, do you think men are above beasts? If so I would call you vain and foolish. What have we to distinctly seperate us? Reason? No, the great apes hold this, if only to a lesser degree. What then, sets us apart? Nothing. We are animals, of course we are animals.

On another point, everything could be taken as fetishism if anything can. It can easily be argued, and often is, that evereyone is simply a projection of ourselfs and thus that real connection is in a sense false. There is no real, penetrating connection. A sexual mechanism can be uselful or useless, but not evil or wrong. If it is normal, it is right, if it is functional, it is right. If this were not the case, we would have to throw psychology out the window, for what else is there but norms and statistics to justify treatment of what is abnormal or malevolent?

You cannot raise sexuality to a metaphysical level, to do so is absurd. Sexuality is a function, it is a beastial, anamalistic, basic, necessity. It is nothing more. If a male is in a sexual mode of thought due to a female in the work place, would you have him sterilized in order to increase productivity? Seperate them totally, seperate but equal? Thought control to supress inconvenient sexual urges, deemed so by the oppresive minority? Sexual tyrrany?

If you can say a perspective is male, please explain how it is not then hypocritical to say that males and females cannot be objectified and viewed as different 'species'. You must either accept that all perspective is human or throw that point of view out the window. How can one justify showing that a perspective is male and then state on the other hand, that women are not different than men?

Political correctness is Orwellian and Lenninist propaganda. Lennin coined the term and invented the ideology behind it. I do not subscribe to it, for it is a constriction of freespeech, no matter how benign or superficially beneficial.

Zentetic,

Of course males and females are different physiologically? one need only look at chromosomal counts. Neurology is another venue, but an unnecessary one. Heck we could boil it down to basic eukarytoic organisms and Deoxyribo nucleic acids. Though we are all animals (which is not an issue here) it is the perception of one sex to another that is in question. But interestingly enough, do you not see a problem with mixing animality with a discussion of the sexes? Does this not seem problematic for the mere fact that you intertwine the two?

Your idea of fetishism is relative. There is nothing against that? it is simply relative. Yet we must pause and consider that the objectification of women is a relative stance as well. The rest of your second paragraph is axiomatic and epideictic.

But how can you not raise sexuality to metaphysical levels??? Sexuality is not solely physiologically influenced. One need only look at a man's choice to be gay or a woman's choice to be gay. That is contrary to biological programming, yet a "metaphysical" choice was made. But I would caution against this type of understanding. There have also been people throughout history who equated black people as inferior because of the biological instance of their integumentary melatonin pigment.

The fact that "a perspective is male" is a skewed reference to another post (post #27) taken out of context. It was reference to a fact of the respondent? not a generalization. In that respect, the accusation of generalization is baseless.

But is political correctness Orwellian and Lenninist propaganda? I could just as well say that political correctness is Rosaveltian, Cartesian, legalian, etc, etc, etc. That is relative.


Iconoclast,

In conclusion... our discussion is finished.

All of my ideas are relative, and I would say that nothing is without some aspect of relativity.

As for Political correctness; Cartesian, Rosaveltian, it doesn't matter, my attack was upon its reality and implications, the relegation of freedom of speech, control speech, control the argument, that is part of lennin's ideology. Offense is not grounds to justify control of speech.

There are many studies indicating neurological difference in males and females. The differences are biggest in formative years, where males and females develop different areas of mental functioning in different succession.

I wonder if it is not true that women objectify men? Is this never the case? What of when I hear a girl observeing a muscular, tan, 6'2" guy exclaim "Omg, he is sooo hot!", is this not similar objectification? When a woman prefers a man who is fit, with a certain set of physical features, is this not objectifying him? Case in point on a different level: An old friend of my mothers is very concerned with appearences, and seeks out mates who she can present as though they were trophies. Her first husband was a mathematician, then a theoretical physicist, then an engineer, and she loves to brag about them and she very much desires to be viewed as an intellectual and acts on and for a certain type of status. Is this not objectification?

On the other hand, is it not true that many women play into the objectification? Do they not enjoy being viewed as somthing that holds such power over men? I know that some do or at least express that they do. One looks at a woman as an object that stimulates sexual urges when they do not know this woman and she seems desireable. I do not think that what is desireable is formed by social opinion, but it is more individual. I am not very attracted to every supermodel I see, I am much more specific and look for specific traits. I do not like how most super thin models look, I do not like how blonde porn stars look very much.

Early man mated by selecting traits of utility to ensure strong young. Today, the healthy model has come along and we are all encouraged to adhere to this norm. Get fit, don't smoke, don't have view X, Y or Z, but rather P, Q and R. The shifting social machine might define what is desireable to some extent, but people define the social machine and genetics paired with experience defines people. I would argue that perhaps the social machine and genetics combine to form identity and all which that entails.

Sexual interaction is entirely biological, any 'metaphysical' aspects are a result of lack of scientific inquiry/development in regards to this subject. I view people as entirely physical or at least entirely undivorced from anything else by their nature. The social theories, one can only hope, shall be dissolved into scientific theories, as social science is quite insufficient and only a crutch to hold up certain ideologies until a sounder process can take over. Since these theories are our best bet for this subject now, I suppose we have no choice but to try to work them out.

Edit:
Is gay a choice? Is it biological, or maybe in certain cases a pathology? Many gay men were abused as boys. I cannot make myself attracted to men, I find gay sex quite upsetting, just as I find a number of fetishes disturbing. Where does gayness divorce itself from a fetish, where does any sexuality divorce iself from a fetishistic complusion?

That statement in itself is relative? LOL!

That there are many studies about neurology and the difference between men and women, ok. That is not a point of contention though.

Do women objectify men? Of course. Women potentially suffer from the same degree of bias that men face. No matter the sex, it is objectification none the less. I did not assume that a biased masculine view was a one sided view.

Women that play into objectification are an interesting instance. It's not unlike a dead metaphor, where a word may be hurtful, but is used so many times and so frequently without thought of the ramifications of the word that it loses its severity. Does it not negate the fact that the word itself is hurtful? No. Also, do some women enjoy the feeling of power by utilizing their sexuality? Sure. So do men. Again, it's a two way street.

As to the historical instance of man and selection? that is relative. Who really knows what drove early man to do what they did. Traits, societal standing, who knows. Has a healthy model come out which we are encouraged to adhere to as the norm? I don't think so. What is beautiful today seems incredibly unhealthy to me. I don't agree with the rest of your assessment though it is to a point well founded.

I really don't agree with your assertion that sexual interaction is entirely biological. It does not make sense to completely discount a known human factor from the equation. Though you view people as entirely physical, the fact that we do not know entirely how the brain operates is more the point why we cannot assume such assertions. I think your desire to compound the issue into physical properties is extremely problematic. But I do agree that there is some lacking in the area? but we cannot as of yet discount the incorporeal natures of human beings.

Is gay a choice? Perhaps. Some contend that it is biological in order to make it a bioethical issue. Not to totally discount biological influence, only there is a mix of the two (i.e. choice and biology). I'm not a fan of homosexual sex either, though as a choice/biological drive, who am I too discount it. Is general homosexuality a fetish? I don't think so. To say that would be to assert that heterosexuality is a fetish as well? which could be argued that it is? but that is besides the point.

[Also, I would like to note that I thanked you for the conversation because I consider it a particularly good, well founded conversation in the best exercises of philosophy. This is a good, rational conversation. Iconoclast did not fully understand that, so I don't want to give you any wrong impressions]

Moderator - Several of these posts have been deleted while others have been edited to remove any inflammatory statements which began an argument between two members of this forum.

This thread is re-opened and we kindly ask that you all be careful with your words towards one another and not argue. Poking and prodding at each other is no way to carry out a philosophical dialog. :poke-eye:

Thank you all and let's keep this on topic!

I am inclined to agree with VideCorSpoon's comments. John Berger says roughly that women know they are being watched (by men) therefore they put on a display for a watcher. Our society is still a male-dominated one and in order for a woman to have a hope (especially an uneducated woman) in hell of being successful in life, she needs a man to want to take care of her. People can say that there is equal opportunity for women, but I say that isn't true. Men are hired more often for jobs that pay higher and have better benefits. Employers wouldn't say it outright, but women are often shunned from good positions because of the possibility they may rear children, thus need more sick days, mat leaves etc... That being said, women are (not all women of course) forced to depend on a man for having children, financial stability, and ****ering with salespeople and mechanics. That, in my opinion, is why women wear make-up and all that other stuff, so we will be accepted in a male dominated world, so people are more likely to notice us as people, and also so that we will be attractive candidates for jobs etc because we are conforming to a societal 'norm' and because the person behind the desk interviewing us is more than likely a man who wants someone qualified and pleasing to the eye to work with. :puzzled:

A huge part of my argument so far (or attempted to grab at) was the fact that there exists this male normative framework that has become a general norm in itself. But with that understanding in mind, males tend to look at female equality through a particularly skewed lens. Males must question that normative framework in order to reach a deeper understanding of the other sex. This thought is not so shocking? or so I would have thought when I first started on this thread. There is a huge amount of resistance to it because it goes against a preconceived notion of an existing framework which is so camouflaged by normativity that we (men... and women) do not notice it. But this is a generalization? which in itself is biased.

But Heather, it's interesting that you mention the idea of make up as a means of acceptance into a male dominated world. There is a very interesting notion put forth by Lewis Gordon, a very well thought out black existentialist. He said, and this is in extension to his thoughts on black existentialism, that the generalization of extravagant black action is the result of a notion called hyper-visibility. More precisely, that in order to be seen (accounting for the fact that within a white normative framework black people are not seen) they have to overdo some quality, whether it be visible or not. Attitudes become more severe and the garb becomes more extravagant all in order to be seen by the opposite party. Do women suffer the same framework??? Probably. Thus layers of makeup are plastered on and garb become tighter and smaller all in an effort to impress the holders of the framework. But then that is the question, isn't it? Do women really like it like that? Some would say its "natural," but I would say its "un-natural" and further unethical.

Personally, I would not think it fair if I were introduced into a system like that. So one could argue that equality as we know it today still harbors preconceived notions of a biased framework.

Heather... in your opinion, what would it take for such a system to break its preconceived notions? How could we really achieve true equality?

VideCorSpoon, I find what you say (or quote) about black people not being seen very interesting. Do you think this theory works for other minorities as well?

As for preconceived notions and true equality, I'm not sure. I tend to think it can't exist and that nothing can change societal notions. However, things have progressed over the years, society has more of an open mind than ever before on issues of equality (which isn't really saying a whole lot). Change has come usually through some revolutionary process, which isn't necessarily always good either. Is there a peaceful way to change these things? I don't know, probably but is it effective change?. Once society is changed and we are perfect (har har) does that make things completely fine? Probably not.

Ok, now that I haven't answered your question, I think that all we can do is be open to change and quit kidding ourselves about change being easy or being up to someone else to change first. :confused:

I think that hyper visibility may run parallel to your thoughts. The idea is that there is a want for acceptance in a separate world. Blacks within a white normative framework and women with a male dominated framework. Does this work for other minorities? Of course I would say yes because it basically a universal notion which can be applied to any particular instance. The notion underlines a basic principle that all opposing things measure to? the "whose framework is it anyway" principle. It's a relative position.

Though I agree there has been some progression, I also think there really hasn't been any real progress in preconceived notions and equality. There always seem to be some displacement with those things. One area seems to get the excess of another area, like (arguably) the prohibition of women in workplace which in turn displaced into women's right in the workplace, etc.

But the evolution of society still harbors the same old resentments. One need only look at dead metaphors to see how words, which originally were intended to hurt, have become normatively accepted but still carry the same hurtful context.

Personally, I'm a avid follower of Tong, so as far as a peaceful solution, I don't see it even appearing without some manner of action. Radical feminism is, in my opinion, the only means to truly equate the sexes because it is done so by the same means of the opposite sex. Simone de Beauvoir makes excellent existentialist points in favor of this as well.

But I do agree with you... being open to change and to quit kidding ourselves about change being easy. But I think it takes a reactionary force in feminism to secure that change. Look what that modus of thought did for the woman's right to vote or women's liberation movement. Though, I should insert the disclaimer that because I am male, my thoughts should not count for much in this mater for many reasons.

Well if change is what is wanted we can appeal to the almighty magazines who could set an anti-trend quite quickly to encourage woman to dress down.

But to be sure we are doing the right thing... Can you imagine woman being dominated by an equal and opposite paradigm to that of make-up and clothes? If the trend was set to wear no make-up, would woman still thrive to out do each other on this battlefield of the aesthetic? Or a weight trend... woman ballooning to three times their original size in competition with others?

We have said previously, because of evolutionary evidence, that the whole make-up thing is 'natural'. Part of either the male of female mating ritual which has evolved out of control! But is it just a psychological president that can be varied but will have the same effect on men and woman?

If we managed to convince all magazines to naturally and slowly introduce pictures of large, make-up-less and down-clothed woman would we see men and woman in equal parts drifting in preference towards that type of woman? Would woman put on weight and would men all become chubby chasers?

Dan.

Excellent point - one that strikes to the heart of the issue.

*What* is done to make oneself attractive is a defined by the culture (everything from sharpening one's teeth, to becoming plump, to the number of rings stacked on the neck, to tattoos and so on).

And since we all have an instinctive desire (to some lessor or greater extent) to attract a mate, to feel attractive; there would logically be a lively discussion on the Philosophy Forum on the evils of <insert method>. Some would demonize the "Ring Mongers" or "Teeth Sharpeners" while others would speak to how this is a natural expression of the human animal.

Very nice point, thank you.

Yes, absolutely. Given the nature of male sexuality, this is our only hope of giving females the respect they deserve - to be aware of the lens with which we're viewing females and work - really work - to give the respect deserved.

One can't likely compensate for their biases if they're not aware of them.