You also are grasping at straws, while going much deeper into the meaning of these words than anyone who uses them even considers.

Specific words only have as much power as you let them.

Qvaken: Yes, women who have been raped, like you. And like me. I will not pretend to speak for the many woman I also know who have been raped, molested, sexually assaulted, or otherwise suffered a sexual predatory attack because there are as many different reactions and responses to those incidents as there are women. I only speak for me.

However, when rape accusations or rape insinuations start being used as as a weapon, ESPECIALLY as a weapon in an area where rape is not feasibly possible, where rape threats or even sneakily implied rape threats have not occurred, and where in fact the topic isn’t even hovering around rape or sexual assault, I feel it starts cheapening the fight so many of us are in to get our voices heard and to be taken seriously. I feel it strengthens the (utterly false) argument–made by men AND woman–that women who cry rape will do so at the drop of the hat and that they will point to situations like this as working examples of the phenomena. Plus, yes, the accusation made in this manner was kinda creepy.

If the argument had been made for misogyny, for male privilege rearing it’s ugly head, for intellectual arrogance, for social awkwardness, for a stubborn refusal of the commenter to see facts (BACKED by said facts, mind), or any other number of sins, I could see where a case might be made. But to start implying the guy had the earmarks of a sexual predator and maybe a rapist just because he was overzealous in trying to get across his point of view across…no. Just NO.

And not just because it was an out-of-place accusation in context to the argument.

That is the DEFINITION of an ad hominem attack–attacking a person’s character in an attempt to undermine their argument–and it is slanderous to boot. Now, acceptable would have been to tell said commenter where one stood; “I am feeling as if you aren’t taking me seriously, that your constant attacks on my arguments are a way of discrediting me, and I am not comfortable with this thread so I will either revisit it after I can get a little space and perspective” and/or “…I need it to end here, or for you to change your tone. I’m sorry.” See? Respectful to others, NOT slanderous, and a reasonable request. And if he comes back with anything but an “I understand,” HE becomes the asshole. But, when ad hominem attacks are made (and those attacks are caught by others) then the person MAKING the attacks is the asshole. Also, those who notice those attacks will cease to take the arguer seriously, even when that person has really good ideas. Why? Because people root for underdogs, and the person being slandered is automatically the underdog. Simple human psychology.

Also:
“Thanks for all the other advice, too, and especially thanks for the indignation at the women here and our refusal to accept that men make cogent, well-educated and well-thought-out arguments and that our responses are only silly, trivial, and are indicative of our intellectual and social inferiority.”

Once again, logical fallacies abound here. One could call this a “to quoque” attack–avoiding a real response by attacking a criticism with another criticism, thus trying to put your intellectual sparring partner on the defensive and making them look bad. However, really, that is a “strawman” argument because it is an utter misrepresentation of what I said.

Clarifying, in case it was legitimately missed, I spoke for ONE man, the above commenter (not Rob, the other one). And I never said he was completely in the right, only that he WAS making an effort, which frankly, on the internet, will make me give almost anyone the benefit of the doubt. With the amount of trolls, flamers, haters, and generally disruptive people who seem to overpopulate the net, anyone who makes an effort to be respectful, literate, and is concentrating on the topic at hand is generally a gem in comparison. Those are the sorts of people blogs and social sites WANT around, because they generally know how to behave like they weren’t raised in a barn. That doesn’t make them perfect, or even right, but it does make them pleasant company, especially in the midst of an intellectual debate.

And yes, he DID have every reason to believe that this topic was open to intellectual debate.

You also implied that I called all women–especially all woman on this thread–”…silly, trivial, and [our responses] are indicative of our intellectual and social inferiority.” Which I never said. NOT ONCE.

I did disagree with THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT, strongly, and I still do. There have been reams of studies I have read that are behind my opinion, and I have also been heavily into reading about the challenges men face, as I have a fourteen year old son. While I am a very strong feminist, with male family it also behooves me to know what my son faces so I can help him avoid the pitfalls of a hyper-masculine culture. And yes, sexism DOES go both ways, and it DOES hurt both genders; as well as those of two genders, or no gender, or flux genders.

I also disagreed with the attacks on the commenter, which I felt were happening BECAUSE of his gender. I feel if he had been speaking as a self professed female instead of a male, he might have been listened to more or, at the very least, the attacks themselves would have taken a different form. Certainly I don’t think a woman, even one behaving the same way, would have had the implication that they were creepy sexual predators lobbed at them.

I also didn’t like the name calling and labeling that allowed the dismissal of anyone else (male OR female) who disagreed with the original supposition, as I also saw that as a bullying tactic, and, again, a slanderous “ad hominem” attack, and one where the “burden of proof” (another logical fallacy) would be on those accused of the label to prove they were not, thus derailing the thread from the original topic and effectively silencing their arguments.

It’s also why I replied, very specifically, that if this were not up for debate, that should have been stated in the original blog post or comments should have been closed completely. The internet is a place of billions of different opinions and, like it or not, if an opinion is stated out here in the wilds of the web, there will inevitably appear voices who disagree. If the reaction to those who disagree is to simply dig in harder and claim the original argument is the only feasible one, then generally that means that it was never up for debate to begin with. So, in those cases, the best thing to do is make a statement, close comments (either to close friends of close them off completely), and leave it at that. No shame in it; everyone is allowed to have an opinion. But leaving a place for open-ended discussion is just inviting responses that include disagreement. That’s just kinda how the internet works, and it won’t stop working that way just because one person wants it to.

Also, there IS middle ground between MRA and the brand of feminism espoused here. There has to be, otherwise this isn’t a movement of diverse opinions and a discussion of possible futures, but simply a regime. And the last time Feminism started leaning in that direction it damn near killed it. I want to hear ALL voices, even male, even trans, even LGBT, even minority, even foreign. Because the gender wars are bigger than us, bigger than our country, bigger even than our sex. They’re worldwide, and we need big, diverse, workable solutions that encompass just as much ground, not to draw into ourselves and hiss at strangers and strange ideas. And, to me, that’s where the real fight begins.

But again, in that, I only speak for me.

The real kicker in this whole thing for me was this:

“…especially thanks for the indignation at the women here and our refusal to accept that men make cogent, well-educated and well-thought-out arguments and that our responses are only silly, trivial, and are indicative of our intellectual and social inferiority.”

More specifically: “refusal to accept that men make cogent, well-educated and well-thought-out arguments.”

Now, if I said that I refused to accept that a womann could make a cogent, well-educated and well-thought-out argument, what would that make me?

Maybe I misread that sentence and interpreted what was meant as two dependent clauses as two INdependent clauses, and if so, please correct me.

But if not, I’d like to know how refusing to accept men’s agruments on the basis that they’re men’s arguments is anything but sexist.

I’m not sure I understand you.
First you say that objectification happens when ‘he desired her’. Then you write about how ‘he forgot she had her own reasons to want to be desired’, and you mention that this is causing great harm.
I can only assume that objectification is something you consider to be harmful, though that’s not explicitly written here.
From that, I’m not sure if objectification is neglecting one’s personal history (for example, appreciating a picture of a sexy model without thinking about that person beyond her attractiveness) or believing that one has no personal history (being convinced that nothing but your appreciation of her attractiveness matters to that model).
The first is not harmful (at least, not according to your conclusion) because it does not require the objectifier to forget that there is some history to be neglected, to forget that women are subjects. The second is not a society-wide problem, because only a few insane or very deluded people could ever forget that women are not selfless and have motives of their own.

So… what does sexual objectification means ? Which is it ?

Caroline Heldman in this video talks about sexual objectification as the focus put on a woman’s attractiveness.
That’s somewhat close to neglecting other aspects of the woman as a person. But as such, the term of objectification doesn’t fit so well. Everyone involved know that women are subjects – they just want them to conform to the norm and meet their desire for more attractiveness.
At work, at parties, at conferences, on the street, people who can feel attraction to women want to see attractive women (well, except for some religious types who call this a temptation), and people who want the attention of those people try to be attractive women.
I don’t think that this should be opposed.
I think it is a particular case of a positive dynamic in our lives. On one side, each of us want to function (sexually, but also socially, professionally, physically…), and to function well (be sexier, be friendlier, be more productive or creative, be more athletic…) or occasionally best (we all want to be the sexiest person in the room, or the …st person in the …, but most of us don’t really consider it a realistic goal). On the other side, we admire and apppreciate others who meet those goals.
Heldman mentions a number of downsides of what she calls “self-objectification”, but that could be more appropriately defined as sexual expectations. Women and girls who want to be attractive, or more attractive, happen sometimes to encounter negative effects.
Depression, eating disorders, body shame, sexual dysfunction, lower self-esteem.
She doesn’t mention why these problems appear. It’s simple, though : they appear when the person doesn’t meet its own expectations, or those of the rest of the world. It is not something that is specific to sexual objectification, It happens to anyone who wants to meet expectations, and fails – subjectively or objectively. The artist who wants to be acclaimed for its original creations and is not (or not enough so, or in a way it didn’t desire) can fall into depression and lose self-esteem too. Same for the student who fails to meet its parents’ expectations, or the employee who fails to meet its manager’s expectations. Body shame and sexual dysfunction are specific to sexual expectations, but there’s equivalencies : the student, artist or worker will feel dissatisfied and shame for its work, and be unable to perform as well.
Habitual body monitoring, lower GPA, female competition… those apply to any one who put a lot of effort into meeting expectations, regardless of its success. A student who wants to become a really good guitarist and spends a lot of time working on that will have a lower GPA too. Competition ? I think it’s as much a problem in regard to attractiveness as to productivity. Body monitoring ? That, for one, can’t be easily transposed to other aspects of life. But it’s not as bad as it sounds. Men too are self-conscious and check themselves and others regularily to be sure that their appearance and manners fit the image they want to project. Women have it worse without a doubt, but rarely to the point that this monitoring becomes a huge effort – especially compared with the effort required to walk around with heels, or to prepare oneself in the morning.

I don’t really understand what she means by depressed cognitive funcitonning and lower political efficacy, so I won’t comment on those.

So to sum that up, I think Heldman missed her own point. It’s not a problem of objectification, it’s a problem of expectations. Tables with feminine legs in advertisement are not to blame. Attraction towards attractive persons is. Affection for friendly persons is. Congratulations to good workers is. Attention paid to great art is. Etc.
Failure to meet expectations and to recieve the rewards creates suffering, and that suffering has negative consequences too. Unreasonable efforts made to meet expectations too.
We should strive to be more relaxed as a society, and not dwell on failures. In the workplace like in the streets. To achieve that, I don’t think that talking about “objectification” is useful.

One thing popped to my mind while I was writing that, though. Most of us appreciate and admire people who are successful in any given aspect of their life (attractiveness being one). But the success of others also creates resentment.
Sexual success is different from other kinds. Attractive women sometimes incur resentment from their wouldbe competitors, of course. But more importantly, they can face resentment from the objects of their success : men attracted to them. Some, out of jealousy for their success in being attractive, would want to punish them for it – either by acting like attractive woman are here at the disposal of men they attract (they are aware that it’s not the case and that acting like that is hurtful), or by trying to prevent them from being attractive.
They don’t actually forget that women have their own motives, they don’t believe them to be objects. It’s not objectification. They want to destroy their success, make it unenjoyable or unprofitable. It’s bad enough as it is, but it’s just that.
Well, I suppose it’s more complicated than that, but this is a part of it.

“Pride-filled women”. As though we’re just being proud and stubborn if we have our own opinions and our own life experiences as females who experience particular treatment from men daily, and if we refuse to follow men’s rules, or alter our stories to suit them, when discussing our experiences.

Once again, you’re referring to MRAs, not Feminism. MRAs say that they stand for Feminism – but not the kind of Feminism where women question and analyse women’s position in the world, where women question and challenge Patriarchy, and where women fight for women’s rights or for women’s liberation. MRAs stand for the kind of Feminism that suits men, that ensures equal focus on men’s troubles (even though these men are currently advantaged in a male-focused world and don’t need equal consideration to oppressed groups), and that keeps men happy and doesn’t threaten them or their institutions. If it started with men and is based on men’s preferences, men’s opinions and men’s view of the world, then yeah, they’re all for it.

But this doesn’t get Feminism very far. It reduces us to a status quo-style movement, where we support and promote exactly the same things that the current system supports and promotes, ergo, we keep everything the same as it is. What’s the point? Instead of following an anti-Feminist movement, MRAs should become liberationists. They should follow women’s lead in analysing the current system, and in recognising what are the institutions and structures that keep oppressed people oppressed and privileged people privileged. They should always put the analyses of oppressed people before their own privileged analysis. This would get us a lot further in uprooting a sick, hierarchical, well-to-do white het male culture, in favour of an egalitarian one.

Strong, independent women (and men) could care less about the gender war garbage because they have nobility, virtues and decency to treat others equally. They are hard to come by these days, but they do exist.

Most of these pride-filled women who hide behind one-sided feminism and corrupted laws generally know little about feminism, its roots or how it came to be. Sadly, most don’t care. With the way women act nowadays, Susan B. Anthony would be turning over in her grave. She fought for women AND MEN.

Thankfully, more men AND WOMEN are starting to stand up against the twisted social norms of corrupted feminism. Some people refuse to bow their heads to Baal. Some people want to be happy and could care less about the tit-for-tat wars that have almost destroyed modern families and our Western culture. I can admit my mistakes and take responsibility for my OWN actions, can you?

The biggest sign of a brittle heart is one who can’t practice what they preach, victim or not.

This sounds a lot like the anti-atheist argument theists give: that we don’t want to believe because then we’d have to give up our sinful ways.

Sex – negativity is not a pejorative any more than pseudoscience is. It’s an accurate description of feminists AND conservatives who make irrational and unjustified claims against the act of sex. The same supposed skeptics against pornography would not rationally use the same arguments against gay male pornography despite a sheer lack of difference between gay male and straight porn.

My favorite example of this dilemma in the movement is the sexual images in the anime Ghost In The Shell. I’ve heard people criticize these images as “objectifying women.” However, the woman in the image is a character who is the protagonist and who is also a leader in a future police force. What’s more, those female sexual parts of her actually are just objects. Only a fraction of her nervous system is still human. The rest, cyborg. The feminine beauty of her body “shell” was her personal choice.

There’s no denying that the show uses sex to advertise to it’s target male audience, but is that the concept of objectification and misogyny that we should be fighting as feminists? I personally don’t think so, but many feminists would disagree. So, which is it?

As a straight male with a strong attraction to the female body, you can have the thickest clothes you can find on a female body and somehow my mind will still desire her soft skin against mine. Does that infringe on her or objectify her just because I have an attraction? I don’t think so. I still treat such women as equals and behave professionally around them.

As more female protagonists enter popular culture, is it really a surprise that they would be depicted sexually? You going to tell me that Superman wasn’t depicted sexually? In tights? How many other male heroes out there wear tights or even go shirtless? And how right is it to suggest that bodybuilding men are the ideal of male beauty?

The only way to depict a woman which would not draw out my desire for women sexually, is wearing a burca. That’s the irrational direction that the argument against objectification eventually treads. The argument itself is weak unless coupled with clear signs of dehumanization towards the woman in question, like in the case of rape, which as it has scientifically been established, is not about sex. It’s important to note that the real problems with the sex industry which harms people are not connected to the objectification of people. Rather, they are connected to the fact that sex-negative culture has forced the industry into unregulated black markets. That’s why sex negativity is a real thing and not just an insult to your ears. It deserves to be called out.

Yeah. “Many women” have suffered this horrific life experience. Like, say, me. So if you would kindly list the comparisons that I’m allowed to make which won’t offend you, then that’d be a big help. Because then I can discard them and continue understanding and discussing rape based on my own experiences, and on the experiences of scores of women who I’ve spoken to about the issue. That is, that it’s a deliberate violation and is a consequence of men’s conscious choice to disrespect women, women’s choice, women’s words and women’s boundaries.

Thanks for all the other advice, too, and especially thanks for the indignation at the women here and our refusal to accept that men make cogent, well-educated and well-thought-out arguments and that our responses are only silly, trivial, and are indicative of our intellectual and social inferiority.