fester@wolf.cs.washington.EDU (Lea Fester) (11/19/90)
In article <1990Nov17.155213.23767@arris.com> uunet!arris!rshapiro@ncar.ucar.EDU (Richard Shapiro) writes: >What's the relevance of this? The point is: the position of being a >spectator is, like most social positions, gendered. This is not to say >that only men can be spectators; it is to say the spectator position >has long been a "masculine" position. Even a cursory look at classic Right. In daily life, this is abundantly obvious any time I walk around with men - most of them compulsively and blatantly check out every attractive woman we pass by. (I say 'compulsively' because I think, they do it so much, it must be unconscious behavior. But I could be wrong.) I think of this as the "I LOOK, THEREFORE I AM (male)" mindset. >There's an undeniable social fact, at least in this country: women are >FAR more conscious of their appearance than men are of theirs. The >gendered nature of spectacle helps to explain why this should be so, >and also suggests that this is important ground for feminism. Ending >women's status as objects rather than subjects, the object seen rather >than the seeing subject, must involve consideration of women's own >self-identity, insofar as that identity is formed according to >gendered positions of spectator and spectacle. Another option is to render men objects as much as they are subjects. (I differentiate this from simply making women subjects, that is, not seen.) This gives women the option of being an objectifier rather than an object. Or rather, since one cannot choose to not be an object, treating men like objects as well at least brings parity into the world. I don't like the second alternative, but it IS within our power, unlike the first. (I.e. we can treat men like objects, although we cannot make them not treat us as such.) I tend to do it only in retaliation, i.e. to people who deserve it. When I see some man looking up the length of my body, I wait until he is looking at my face so that he sees me looking at him, then I stare at his crotch. The results generally prove that although men protest that looking at women is harmless and uninsulting, they feel differently when they are being objectified. LeaF
ag1v+@andrew.cmu.EDU ("Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz") (11/21/90)
What is objectifying? Is it simply the gazing upon a human being that causes them to be objectified, or is it the thought processes of the spectator that actually cause the objectifying? I look at men in a lusty manner. I enjoy it. I have never seen any of them notice that they were being watched. I doubt that they felt objectified. Were they? By my looking I am certainly not trying to degrade them. I never do catcalls as I do consider that degrading and this is not my intention. Now, by the definitions I've seen on here I was definitely degrading each man I looked at and shouldn't do it. But are they really degraded? Do they feel degraded? If not, who are we to say that they are? There are women who enjoy being looked at. Not all women do. Something that can work in the long run, but takes a lot of courage is to tell the spectator that you don't appreciate thier glances and would like them to stop. Believe me, this doesn't work all the time. Lea Fester's method of staring at a man's crotch when you know they've been looking at you and they know you're now looking at them definitely drives the point home that there are ways to make men also feel degraded. It feels good to put yourself in such a position of power that you can actually do that to another person without saying a word to them. Is that a good way to do it? I think that people have to decide that for themselves. But if you feel that you are being degraded by someone, either in their eyes or in your own, don't do nothing about it. Use Lea's method. Use mine. Use something so that whoever is doing the objectifying knows that this is how people percieve what they are doing and that they should stop. You might get laughed at using my method. But if they were objectifying you or someone else to begin with how much do you really value their opinion anyway? Something that women need to work on is not allowing those things which they consider degrading to happen to them. Any kind of small protest whether it is in your mind or to the world will help it stop. Think of it this way. If women in general don't feel degraded by being looked at by men, then they aren't being degraded. There is a difference between actions and thoughts. Usually people think before they act (hopefully). If people start changing their thought processes then other changes will come in time. Just food for thought. Andrea
Thomas.Farmer@bbs.actrix.gen.nz (11/21/90)
I feel I should mention a contra example when it comes to men Recently I saw a women dressed all in black. Unlike most people who The point of the story? The woman gave me a very hostile look Then I realised that she thought I had been ogling her body! A
Thomas.Farmer@bbs.actrix.gen.nz (11/22/90)
[This is a resend of the earlier mangled article (due, I think, to line noise on my modem). Since neither of us managed to save it, this is a paraphrase of the original article. --CLT] Some people were commenting about how men 'ogle' women. I just had one contra example... Recently I saw a woman dressed completely in black. I don't mean she was wearing mainly black clothes. This was ALL black! I scanned my eyes up and down her body - looking for the smallest hint of colour - a label perhaps. Nope. This was all black. Then I was surprised to see that this woman was looking at me in a very hostile way. I then realised that she thought I had been ogling her body or something and was therefore offended. I don't know about you lot, but it seems to me that the more we expect to be offended, the more offended we get, even by innocent actions.
rshapiro@arris.com (Richard Shapiro) (11/23/90)
In article <13781@june.cs.washington.edu> Lea Fester <fester@wolf.cs.washington.EDU> writes: >[Richard Shapiro wrote:] >>Ending >>women's status as objects rather than subjects, the object seen rather >>than the seeing subject, must involve consideration of women's own >>self-identity, insofar as that identity is formed according to >>gendered positions of spectator and spectacle. >Another option is to render men objects as much as they are subjects. >(I differentiate this from simply making women subjects, that is, not >seen.) This gives women the option of being an objectifier rather >than an object. Or rather, since one cannot choose to not be an >object, treating men like objects as well at least brings parity into >the world. I'm not sure this would help, This kind of reversal tends to come off as a kind of parody, something not to be taken seriously (like Playgirl magazine or male strip joints). You're probably right that there's little to be done in the short term to end this gendered spectatorship. But there may be actions we can take that will be useful in the longer term: - Education. Many people don't even realize that this is an issue at all, or if they do realize it, they discount it. It helps (I think) to show people just how pervasive this set-up really is, and to theorize what its effects are. I believe that this is a crucial aspect of the oppression of women that is completely untouched by the liberal economic approaches: equal pay, equal job opportunities, etc. Not the latter are unimportant. But on their own, they will never be sufficient. - Self-criticism. That's a loaded term, I know. But it is important to recognize the self-image component of the gendered spectator. There was a report about a year ago in which it was found that, at the age of 5 (or so), girls and boys had more or less identical notions of self-image and self-worth. By the age of 10, girls had become overwhelmingly concerned over their appearance (whether they were "pretty") whereas boys became concerned over their relative strength (or how "tough" they were). In other words, women oppress themselves as much as men oppress them. >When I see some man >looking up the length of my body, I wait until he is looking at my >face so that he sees me looking at him, then I stare at his crotch. This might be called "phallocentric". Since the disappearance of the cod-piece, male genitals have ceased to be much of a spectacle in day to day life. So your action isn't really the converse of his action, but something else altogether. I'm not sure you really want to put such an emphasis on the guy's penis. Compare "length of my body" with "his crotch". Your entire body is on display, whereas only a tiny piece of him is (and it really isn't unless he's naked or wearing peculiar clothing). There's an elaborate theory of the central signifying role of the phallus as the primary signifier of gender. I don't want to try to get into that here, except to say that you may be encouraging this, unintentionally. Also, men would have to be subjected to this every day, for most of there lives, by a significant number of women, for this strategy to be effective. They would have to see themselves completely on display throughout public and private life. This would result in a kind of equality, and you may be right that it's more feasible than ending the female spectacle. I find that a depressing thought, but it may be a realistic one.