Formula 1

(83 Posts)
HotBurrito1 Sun 30-Jun-13 11:51:08

Was just playing with my boys when I noticed that the telly had images of scantily clad women holding brollies over fully dressed male F1 competitors in the rain. When I say scantily clad, think leather mini skirt, bare midriff and leather halter bra -not standard wet weather clobber (at least I've never seen the like in the waterproofs section of Millets).

I never normally watch F1, so I don't know if this is usual, but I was annoyed to suddenly see this on the screen. Obviously, I can (and did) switch off. I really didn't want my boys to see the dubious message which was basically:'stand there in your bra, hold the brolly and look sexy love, whilst the men actually do something'. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

scallopsrgreat Sat 13-Jul-13 13:01:16

I would like to know why you think what I said was offensive, out of interest? Feel free to ignore, though, I won't hang on with baited breath.

scallopsrgreat Sat 13-Jul-13 12:58:53

And I didn't make assumptions about women not having orgasms confused, I said that a woman losing her virginity is not based on her having an orgasm. Very very different.

scallopsrgreat Sat 13-Jul-13 12:56:34

"why you think that" it should say

scallopsrgreat Sat 13-Jul-13 12:55:19

Not sure how I am supposed to produce stats for the definition of a woman's loss of virginity confused

Or as Buffy says for just discussing a theory. You don't have to agree with me. But offering up another argument and some evidence as to why you think would be the normal way to go.

This conversation is getting very bizarre (and not a little personal).

Thank you for your sincere apology. It is worthy of both your mentors, those great thinkers Beavis and Butthead.

<shakes head in despair>

No libertarianj, no. What we are not doing is making assumptions about everybody and everything. We are discussing social theory. That is something different. I'm sorry that you are finding this notion so difficult to grasp. I wonder, given your evident respect for stats are you able to produce statistical evidence of the rational individualistic lack of societal influence you claim to be true? No? Well that's because it's a social theory, init.

Stats and social theory are, like, unmixy things.

libertarianj Fri 12-Jul-13 23:54:46

well you and Scallops are the ones making assumptions about everybody and everything. All i have done is challenged that fact. I am sorry if you thought that to be vitriolic and insulting abuse, but i am kind of getting tired of this whole speaking for everyone mentality that you continue to exhibit. I do apologise for making assumptions about you being Guardian readers, that was out of order. But that's the thing, it's never nice when someone makes assumptions is it?

Well why not re-read the vitriolic and insulting abuse you just posted when you're sober, eh?

libertarianj Fri 12-Jul-13 23:25:44

err i am little bit Buffy aren't you?, it is a Friday night after all? making assumptions about women not having orgasms and it being all about the man's pleasure is a seriously massive assumption to make and i am disappointed given that you have made some excellent points, you think this is an acceptable assumption to make? Again i would like to see some stats to back up this claim? If this is your own personal experience then you have my greatest sympathy, however to generalise about such a matter, is that really fair?

Are you drunk?

libertarianj Fri 12-Jul-13 22:30:59

so Buffy i see you are going to suck up to Scallop then? why cus she's one of your sisters? a woman? mmmm! please explain the logic of Scallop to me if you dare? as according to her she must read the sun everyday as all those girls on page 3 are silicon enhanced double D breasts? Are they really Scallop? are they really? no they they ain't cus if you DID actually read the Sun, you would realise that they feature the whole spectrum of breast sizes and no enhancements are allowed. Also unlike the Guardian which i expect is your paper of choice? they don't feature topless size zero girls in the name of fashion. Do they?

Ah and i see Scallop you are making assumptions for all of womankind again as in:

I think how women view their sexuality is within a framework set up by men, for men. Even losing your virginity is measured by what a man does to you i.e. penetrate you. There is no consideration of a woman's orgasm, for example in that.

I find this an incredibly offensive and condescending statement to make to both women and men. Can you please give some stats to back up this claim please?

angry

You really are scrapping the barrel now Scallop

scallopsrgreat Fri 12-Jul-13 16:40:46

I don't know if you've read Gail Dines book Pornland: How Pornography has hijacked our sexuality, but that goes into how pornography is shaping both women's and men's sexuality. It is a hard read (in terms of graphic descriptions of violent assaults on women) but it illustrates some good points. Pornography, after all is the extreme end of objectification. Made by men, for men, in the main.

Don't worry, I didn't interpret it that way! It's a good point, I am mulling over how to respond and thinking I should read up on objectification a bit more. Partly because much disagreement seems to stem from different definitions of terms...

scallopsrgreat Fri 12-Jul-13 15:01:01

Sorry I think that came over as 'why can't you see it, it's obvious' when really I am just thinking out loud!

scallopsrgreat Fri 12-Jul-13 14:51:47

Well it isn't a coincidence the Page 3 models have larger breasts. How can that not be linked to why some women want breast enlargements to feel more attractive and give themselves confidence. Isn't that tied up with how they view their own sexuality i.e. from what a man finds sexy (allegedly)

Hope that makes sense!

Is it? While I agree with all those things, I hadn't considered that part of objectification per se...

scallopsrgreat Fri 12-Jul-13 14:24:43

I disagree Buffy. I think women's sexuality is being exploited too. I think how women view their sexuality is within a framework set up by men, for men. Even losing your virginity is measured by what a man does to you i.e. penetrate you. There is no consideration of a woman's orgasm, for example in that.

Objectification is part of the skewing and shaping of what a woman's sexuality is.

<does penance to the apostrophe goddess>

I suspect it's' more complicated than that. For a start, I suspect that the ones whose sexuality is being exploited is the male viewer. Women are being exploited too, but in a different way, I think.

I'm going to have to read up on the literature a bit, aren't I? Because I'd really like to know how this distinction between innate sexuality and objectification / exploitation is dealt with. Back in a few weeks then...

<sigh>

libertarianj Thu 11-Jul-13 23:07:16

But actually, I don't think that objectification has anything to do with an individual's sexuality! Perhaps that's why we're struggling to find some common ground in this discussion...

No neither do i, but the objectification theory does and that is what i have been arguing against all this time. For example a person admiring, enjoying looking at a page 3 girl is down to their sexuality, and as long as they appreciate she is still a real person, which i reckon your average intelligence person does, then this is not objectification, it's physical attraction.

On the other hand taking the Bartoli Tennis case, when someone makes a twitter comment about her being ugly and totally disregarding her as a person and her tennis achievement then this is what i would term 'objectification'. This case has nothing to do with sexuality as you rightly say, this is most likely jealousy.

so we have two very different situations, one healthy and one not, but both are being considered the same thing under objectification theory.

Objectification is an exploitation of individual sexuality by people who want to use it to make money. And it is this exploitation of sexuality or sexual attractiveness , because it is standardised and reproduced so much, that makes the problem both so widespread and to have such regrettable consequences for how women are perceived.

now this theory does make a lot more sense than the other objectification theory as at least you are making a very clear definition of how it is defined i.e when money exchanges hands. However it is not really exploitation when someone is happy to part with their money for something they enjoy, even if it is something that is appealing to their sexuality.

scallopsrgreat Thu 11-Jul-13 18:30:46

Makes complete sense to me Buffy

But actually, I don't think that objectification has anything to do with an individual's sexuality! Perhaps that's why we're struggling to find some common ground in this discussion...

Objectification is an exploitation of individual sexuality by people who want to use it to make money. And it is this exploitation of sexuality or sexual attractiveness , because it is standardised and reproduced so much, that makes the problem both so widespread and to have such regrettable consequences for how women are perceived.

Wow, I only really realised that that makes a sort of sense to me as I typed it. But it does seem to make a fair bit of sense, actually.

What do you think?

libertarianj Thu 11-Jul-13 13:13:33

Buffy But theories don't stand or fall on whether they "respect" a particular ideological viewpoint (and I'm sorry to tell you that rational individualism is one of those) they stand or fall upon the degree to which they provide the best representation of reality we can come up with. And lots of psychological and sociological theories try and make assumptions about how people think and how that then relates to their behaviour. That is their purpose! Attachment theory, for example. The Theory of Planned Behaviour.

Yeah i agree that theories do have to make assumptions but it's the 'best representation of reality we can come up with' bit that i am not agreeing with for objectification theory. I think it's way off the mark and far too vague with too many variables and not enough knowns to make it viable. As Scallops has said above, how people are affected is spectrum and to try and apply a line of best fit or standard deviation is not possible for this and is where objectification theory falls down

Your theory seems to be that we aren't influenced by culture? That we are individuals who just react to everything on its merits without any outside influences? That's my interpretation of what you've posted, but please correct me if I've got that wrong... In which case images that present women and men as objects don't matter because they don't have any consequences.

No i think with elements of our lifestyle we are heavily influenced by culture, but when it comes to sexuality i think these influences are very minimal and as i said to Scallops above i think people like what they like and it's a very personal thing.

scallopsrgreat Wed 10-Jul-13 21:17:29

I am not making any assumptions about how people will behave. I am observing how they already behave. I am putting those behaviours down to societal influences. You aren't. You are putting them down to "other" factors but failing to say what those other factors are.

Having podium girls isn't going to make everyone who views them objectify women, even though the fact that they are there is objectification in itself. No-one has said that. There are obviously other influences, media, magazines, lap-dancing clubs etc. in addition not everyone is going to be affected in the same way or to the same degree. It is a spectrum.

Some people are born gay, some people choose to be gay. I think it is probably a spectrum, again. We are to some extent more open about our sexuality but heterosexuality is still heavily pushed and is the norm. And what is considered sexually attractive in the opposite sex is not that much more varied now as it was 300 years ago. It is just different. And no I don't think that everybody finds the same things sexually attractive but nor do I think it is any coincidence that long blonde haired women are very popular with advertisers and sponsors of tennis hmm.

libertarianj Wed 10-Jul-13 20:52:55

But being addicted to drugs in itself doesn't make you objectify women and be a misogynist and neither does having learning difficulties. It is quite offensive to say that someone with learning difficulties would objectify women or be a misogynist for that reason alone.

yes i agree, it can be offensive to make assumptions about how people will behave, very similar to how claiming objectification is also making assumptions about how people will behave.

Objectification and misogyny are learned behaviours. And they are learnt from the people they associate with and the society they are involved in.

Says who? As i said before there are number of factors that could be at play. Yes there will be people who are easily influenced. However it is the level of this influence and number of people who are influenced which need to be considered, before making a blanket assumption that x will cause y people to objectify. And another thing that i have just thought of. Who actually defines when something is objectifying and when it is not? Surely that line is going to be different for different people?

And I disagree sexuality is innate. What people (in general) have found sexually arousing has changed over the centuries. So I don't see how it can't be influenced by the society you live in.

Really? So you don't think people are born gay for example? You think that is something that is down to society?
and have you not considered that the only thing that has changed over the centuries is that people have just become more open about their sexuality and less repressed? These things would have gone on under the radar back in the day as the consequences for admitting them would be dire.

The objectification theory fails as it assumes how people think and doesn't respect individuality

But theories don't stand or fall on whether they "respect" a particular ideological viewpoint (and I'm sorry to tell you that rational individualism is one of those) they stand or fall upon the degree to which they provide the best representation of reality we can come up with. And lots of psychological and sociological theories try and make assumptions about how people think and how that then relates to their behaviour. That is their purpose! Attachment theory, for example. The Theory of Planned Behaviour.

Your theory seems to be that we aren't influenced by culture? That we are individuals who just react to everything on its merits without any outside influences? That's my interpretation of what you've posted, but please correct me if I've got that wrong... In which case images that present women and men as objects don't matter because they don't have any consequences.

Objectification theory, as I understand it, says that people are influenced to some degree by the culture around them, and therefore it does matter that there are so very many examples around us where women are presented in a certain way.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now