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.

caroldecker Sun 30-Jun-13 16:38:23

perfectly standard F1 - there probably is a more sexist 'sport' but can't think of one

Why would they need to be wearing wet weather clobber though?

kim147 Sun 30-Jun-13 16:42:25

Just like boxing when the women parade with the round number.

Look at what happens when they present the prizes at the end.

HotBurrito1 Sun 30-Jun-13 17:53:17

Fatima, well perhaps not wellies and a mac, but it was raining. I never go out in me bra in the rain, do you?

Kim, what happens when they present the prizes in boxing?

CrowsLanding Sun 30-Jun-13 17:57:17

It was a lovely day it silver stone not a drop of rain in sight. [Confused] It is pretty standard to see the girls at f1 dressed like that.

zigzoo Sun 30-Jun-13 18:05:38

There is a new campaign on twitter about this nopodiumgirls!

TiggyD Sun 30-Jun-13 18:28:13

What rain?

HotBurrito1 Sun 30-Jun-13 18:35:32

Sorry, I just checked the TV listings and it wasn't formula 1 blush. It was Moto GP. There were no vehicles on screen on the bit I saw. Should have checked my facts.

Point still stands as a general thing though. That's interesting zigzoo, thanks.

Darts is just as bad, the players are accompanied up to the stage on a walkway through the crowd by scantily clad ladies who do a little wiggley dance on the stage before the match starts. It is really depressing that this stuff still happens, feels like a throwback to the 70s or something.

ahh right, that's what confused me. Thinking that in the sun they should be stood wearing a big mac and galoshes grin

I know in World Superbikes, a few of them have there wife/girlfriend stood with the brolly but they don't tend to be scantily clad (apart from the girlfriend who is an Italian model).

There are a few female bikers, I wonder who they have holding their brollies hmm

elQuintoConyo Sun 30-Jun-13 19:28:22

Don't lovely ladies in their knickers hand over yellow jerseys etc in Tour de France?

Makes me want to throw up, too. Here's your prize - oh, and look at her tits! angry

specialsubject Sun 30-Jun-13 19:33:02

Clearly the job pays well as there are females willing to do it.

the tour de france girls usually wear dresses. It is beach volleyball players who are in their knickers - admittedly they are doing the sport. Strangely men can play in shorts without hampering the game.

funny old world.

kim147 Sun 30-Jun-13 19:44:24

"Clearly the job pays well as there are females willing to do it."

Which is at the heart of a lot of things where women are seen as objects but are still willing to do it.

Saidar Sun 30-Jun-13 23:03:09

It's a job, she's chosen to do it, power to her. Long as she's happy and not coerced in to the attire I don't see a problem. I'm sure she's aware she's seen as an object, to suggest otherwise would be insulting, and she must be comfortable with this.

TheSmallClanger Sun 30-Jun-13 23:12:08

These podium women come from modelling agencies. Modelling, like any other agency-based work, is not based on models actively choosing their assignments. Models are offered work and accept it if it is worth their while. This will obviously depend on how busy and in-demand a particular model is, and whether her schedule and profile allow her (or him, if we're talking about modelling in general) to exercise any active choice. Models at the "lower" levels of their profession get very little choice of assignment, if they want to pursue modelling full-time and support themselves.

My general opinion is that podium girls, brolly dollies, round-card girls and their ilk should really have been consigned to the cultural dustbin by now.

AuntPepita Sun 30-Jun-13 23:15:43

Once you've made the link between spraying the champagne everywhere as the <ahem> climax of the race and well... Imagine the rest... You never really watch the podium in the same way again...

YouMakeMeWannaLaLa Mon 01-Jul-13 00:55:20

Saidar and specialsubject care to apply a little more thinking to the issue?

Of course some women will be willing to be the sports models for money...why wouldn't they? They get paid and they get admiration. Lovely!

Well yes, but that obviously (when one cares to apply thinking) reinforces the idea that women are only worth their looks...<cash in on them while you can> while men are worth their ability.

Hence the fact that many women are sidelined at an age when men are doing very well.

It all reinforces the idea that women are decorative (hence worthless if they are 'judged' ugly) and men are active (hence worthless if they are weak/short/disabled).

Which feeds through to the everyday...i.e let's employ good looking people, judge ugly people, super-judge women etc...

YouMakeMeWannaLaLa Mon 01-Jul-13 00:59:06

Auntpepeita grin Well, now you've mentioned it...aint no woman ever sprayed that champagne over a loada blokes!

I can't believe men are better drivers than women...I can believe men are given a lot more opportunities to drive better than women...

SoggySummer Mon 01-Jul-13 01:17:59

I believe they are referred to as Pit Babes.

Saidar Mon 01-Jul-13 08:25:21

I've applied the thinking, thanks though. It's something I like or condone. However, after more thought, I am uncomfortable telling any woman you can't wear/do that, you're making women look bad. There's enough of that as it is.

Just because a woman is dressed a certain way doesn't mean she's only good for her looks. If that's the way she's perceived them the problem is with the person looking. We should be changing our way of thinking not what we wear.

PromQueenWithin Mon 01-Jul-13 12:34:49

I agree that the problem is with the looker Saidar, but the issue is how are we to change the culture that all women are there to be decorative objects while many women are happy to be paid to be judged as decorative objects?

Trouble is, while I agree that they should be free to choose their career and wardrobe, those choices impact how the world sees me and my dd and actually, their choices take away some of our freedom to choose. So, whose freedom wins? Currently, theirs does, because it fits patriarchal culture.

specialsubject Tue 02-Jul-13 21:38:56

I doubt that those who are happy to take cash for these jobs are really that bothered about how it affects the perception of women.

clearly the money is sufficient that they don't mind being regarded as airheaded bimbos by quite a lot of us. Women are also prepared to starve and walk in stupid clothes for money. Don't tell me that these are the only jobs available.

all we can do is teach the daughters that they are better than this, and that models, reality TV stars and cheerleaders for sport are NOT what they should aspire to be.

PromQueenWithin Tue 02-Jul-13 21:41:49

I don't have to regard them as air headed bimbos to find it very frustrating that they don't see / don't care about the impact of their choices on other women.

kim147 Wed 03-Jul-13 21:04:24

Article about cycling podium girls

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23159766

" I would like to think that by the 21st Century women would be more than just beautiful ornaments to stand beside successful men," says Laura Weislo, deputy editor of Cyclingnews.com. "The only time that you see a female presence on television in professional cycling is the models on the podium, and it only heightens the inequality in the sport."

or

Kelly "Minx" Riordan, a journalist and podium hostess in cyclo-cross, where riders tackle shorter courses over more varied terrain, says the Tour hostesses are an essential part of tradition. "It wouldn't be a proper ceremony without them," she says. "These are talented women in their own right. They shouldn't be dismissed simply as eye candy."

What are their talents? What do they do? Not a rhetorical question to express scorn for this statement, a desire to understand...

TheSmallClanger Wed 03-Jul-13 21:45:14

I expect it's the usual guff about one doing it to finance either a PhD, or her own competition career, and the other writing a screenplay, and another one having Grade 8 piano. /sarcasm

Whatever the talents these people have, they are not actually demonstrating them.

caroldecker Fri 05-Jul-13 01:10:30

Maybe they are demonstrating their talents? Maybe they are 'air headed bimbos' whose most lucrative career choice is being models/pit babes etc. Not all people can earn monry from their brain, so that leaves unskilled work. I would expect they earn more there than unskilled work where looks are irrelevant.
Should they not capitalise on thier best earning potential because it causes issues for us?
I 'compete' with other people for a job/promotion etc in the field I am best at and do not worry that someone else has 'suffered' because i have got the job and they are still unemployed - should we expand this to include them?

Should they not capitalise on thier best earning potential because it causes issues for us?

Therein lies the crux of many objectification debates.

TheSmallClanger Fri 05-Jul-13 11:38:07

Standing still, smiling and giving pecks on the cheek to sweaty men isn't really a talent. Anyone can do that if they want to.

libertarianj Fri 05-Jul-13 13:54:06

I expect it's the usual guff about one doing it to finance either a PhD, or her own competition career, and the other writing a screenplay, and another one having Grade 8 piano. /sarcasm

Whatever the talents these people have, they are not actually demonstrating them.

er but why should they?, maybe they enjoy modelling? For all you know they could be the next Adrian Newey or Ross Brawn if they wanted to be, but maybe they can't be arsed or don't want the commitment. I notice there are number of female mechanics/ engineers/ pit crew these days anyway. Like Gill Jones for example:

wtvbam.com/news/articles/2013/apr/21/red-bull-put-a-woman-on-the-podium-in-f1-first/

OK, I am open to the idea that this might be a silly thing to post. However...

<wibbly alternate reality music and visual effects>

In this reality libertarianj men (I have made the assumption that you are a man?) are judged primarily by their ability to play football. Not much else.

Magazines dedicated to famous football players, targeted at women, talk about their skills and achievements in football. Women find a strong left foot very attractive indeed and often discuss this with their mates. "Cor, look at the instep on that!" "I bet that boots it". Women shout at boys from their cars "gissa header!" "get your kit on!"

Female news readers read the news. Male newsreaders read the news, but at the same time must return headers. If they fail to do this very well, or if they get a bit slower over time, even if they can still read the news well, they are replaced with a better returner of headers, who will read the news from that point onwards.

At events where women demonstrate their skills in a wide range of other activities, Football Boys stand next to them doing keepy uppy. Who knows, they might even be able to do other stuff too? We don't care that much, because they're so great at keepy uppy! I mean, keepy uppy isn't all that hard. It's pretty ridiculous really, but they get paid and they're probably really happy about that.

There are even some boys who do things that aren't football. One or two of them are even almost as good as the women who do those things. Here's an article <link to no article that has ever said this ever> that makes much of the fact that they are a boy and their presence in this woman dominated profession is Very Unusual. They must be Very Special!

Oh, you're a man that is just ordinarily good at football? You're not bad, you even play for a local team on Saturdays? But you don't want to be judged just on your footballing abilities? You think you have more to offer the world? You're really quite good at your job as a teacher, you've written a novel, you say? But still, most of what you see around you, in the media, advertisements, even toy shops, is just about how good some men are at football. You think that this is unjust? It puts you into a pigeon hole you don't want to be shoved into, just because you are a male?

Well, HARD CHEESE mate, that's just HOW IT IS. These football boys get well paid, you don't hear them complaining that they're "objectified" and only important because of their football. What's it got to do with you anyway, it's none of your business how they live their lives. You're probably just jealous because they're better at football than you.

<wibbly alternate reality music and visual effects>

I don't know if that helps at all?

Even if it doesn't, damn I enjoyed writing it grin

DISCLAIMER: of course, I do realise that a very small number of men do indeed do very well out of being good at football. But not in the way that the alternate reality depicts.

Frettchen Fri 05-Jul-13 15:00:53

The problem, as I see it, is not the sport so much as the men who run the sport. Yes, Bernie Ecclestone, I'm looking at you.

I was at Silverstone last weekend. There were women there, but we were far outnumbered by the men (which did mean the queues for the loos/showers were shorter...) but I do think the female fanbase is rising.

The thing is there ARE female F1 engineers, drivers and even a Team Principle. The women are there, it's just that breaking in to F1 is a lifelong thing; to be a driver you have to be karting from the age of 5 (ish) and it helps to have an F1 driver for a parent. It's an expensive hobby and young girls don't generally get put into toy cars when their brothers do. (Which is wrong; girls should be able to play in cars and boys in toy kitchens if they want... but that's another rant.) To be an engineer you have to have made the right education/training choices, and again the vast majority of young girls either don't want to study engineering, or are convinced not to because it's not a 'girly' thing to do. (As before with the toy cars; this is a thing in need of change.)

I think F1 will get there, but I think it's going to take another generation to edge out the old-fashioned men at the top and to allow a more free-thinking group of people to take the reins and to realise that women can match the men both physically and mentally. I'm not excusing or forgiving Bernie and his chums, just picking my battles.

Then we'll see what happens to the air hostess-esque podium girls. Either they'll be joined by young men in zazzy costumes, or they'll disappear completely. <crosses fingers for the second option>

libertarianj Sat 06-Jul-13 00:09:05

Thank you Buffy for replying back in depth...... however you have not addressed any of the points i have made and instead just tried to force through some incredibly lame analogy assumption. And why do you need to hide behind an analogy and not tell it how it is?

Maybe you should write to Gill and ask her if she was hard done to or if she was just a token female engineer who was pushed up the ranks to meet the equal opps criteria? I often refute objectification theory but i think some real objectification is being done by you guys, as you regard yourselves as some superior beings, who know what's best for those other 'stupid women' who choose to do modelling instead of using their full potential to be F1 engineers. That is real objectification, not some bloke being attracted to a pretty girl posing on page 3. That's human instinct at the end of the day and our race would become extinct if it wasn't for this basic mechanism. But you regarding other women as lesser individuals is objectification and is pure jealousy.

And unlike yourself i did not get some sadistic pleasure out of writing this piece. Also maybe you should stop trying to speak for womankind and speak for yourself. You claim you are a reasonable feminist? blush

angry

EduCated Sat 06-Jul-13 02:15:50

Isn't Formula 1 one

EduCated Sat 06-Jul-13 02:17:47

*of the few sports that has no gender divisions and men and women can compete equally? Yet despite this there's only been about 3 female F1 drivers, which is really quite sad when it's a sport with a lot of potential for talented women to compete in.

It's a shame you thought my analogy was lame, I rather liked it. Well, allow me to respond to some of the points in your last post:

I didn't suggest Gill was a token female engineer. In fact, I'm sure that she is an excellent engineer. She must be in order to succeed in a male dominated area.

I have noticed a couple of your "refutations" of objectification theory. They appear to consist of statements that it is "bollocks"? But then you go on to accuse me of objectifying women by pointing out that their choices may contribute to a culture of objectification. I think that this shows that rather than refuting the theory, you may not understand it. Certianly, you are not showing any understanding of the theory in your posts. Further, some people might well regard themselves as superior to Podium Girls. I don't think you'll find such a statement in my posts.

The pleasure I got from writing it wasn't sadistic* it was the pleasure one gets from creativity and from exploring an idea in a relatively novel way. Aaaaaaand finally, I am very careful to speak for nobody but myself. Unlike your good self, who appears to wish to speak for me and all those you identify as being women like me. Oh, and the reasonable feminist thing? A tribute to a range of intelligent women on here who were good enough to engage in decent and respectful discussion about our respective opinions.

Jealousy, eh? that's one point that appears proven

*no kittens, puppies or angry male mumsnet posters wanting to set us silly ladies straight were harmed during the writing of the analogy, and any pain caused to your argument was not found sexually arousing.

libertarianj Mon 08-Jul-13 12:58:59

sorry i think i was being a bit harsh, reading my response back. You have been very reasonable and think i was maybe getting at some of the other posters.

However with regards to my refutation of objectification theory, i have explained numerous times on various threads on here be that page 3, lads mags, lap dancing clubs or formula 1 it's always been the same and i haven't just said it's bollocks, i have said it is flawed.
Why is that?, well it assumes what people are thinking, with no regard to individuality. It's an attempt to make physical attraction something sinister and bad. What is so wrong about being attracted/ being turned on by images of the opposite sex (same sex for some people) in a magazine, tv, video, real life etc clothed or unclothed? It's a perfectly natural response and not something that i believe should ever be suppressed. Of course there will be some idiots out there who do objectify women and vice versa but to say the majority of society will somehow be warped, influenced is basically saying people can't be trusted, which is basically censorship.

I've not read much literature on objectification theory. Perhaps I should read more...

I've read enough to have developed the understanding that it isn't about people finding other people sexually attractive or about saying sexual attraction is a good or a bad thing. Personally, I think it's a good thing. Peace and love, la la la.

Objectification happens when the sexual attraction is based upon a collection of pleasingly arranged body parts without recognising that a person, with thoughts, feelings, funny jokes, annoying habits, lives inside those body parts.

It's the without recognising that's the crux, I think. Of course, when men think about it for a second, they know that the women-parts they're looking at contain a person. But because the presentation of woman-parts is so mainstream, so normalised, they are invited not to think about it. To just react to those images as woman-parts, not woman.

But actually, the problem isn't with individuals objectifying other individuals, it is with a culture in which pictures of women-as-body-parts seem very prevalent in a way that men-as-body-parts (while they exist) seem less prevalent. But even if the quantities were equal, I still perceive a problem in that women seem so much more likely to be judged upon their looks (ref Marion whatserface) than men.

scallopsrgreat Mon 08-Jul-13 21:09:02

Hear, hear Buffy.

libertarianj Tue 09-Jul-13 00:31:55

Objectification happens when the sexual attraction is based upon a collection of pleasingly arranged body parts without recognising that a person, with thoughts, feelings, funny jokes, annoying habits, lives inside those body parts.

yeah that's kind of the theory but how many people do you know who actually think like this? i can't say i know of anyone who display that kind of behaviour other than normal physical attraction. I mean come on who actually thinks 'ah yeah she's a nice collection of pleasingly arranged body parts'? I think anyone who does is quickly escorted back to the asylum.

But actually, the problem isn't with individuals objectifying other individuals, it is with a culture in which pictures of women-as-body-parts seem very prevalent in a way that men-as-body-parts (while they exist) seem less prevalent. But even if the quantities were equal, I still perceive a problem in that women seem so much more likely to be judged upon their looks (ref Marion whatserface) than men.

Why is it not a problem with individuals? Why blame the majority? This goes back to the nanny state way of thinking where a few people misbehave, so the majority have to penalised. As i said before objectification is saying people can't be trusted to see attractive images of the opposite/ same sex, be that podium girls, boy bands, page 3 or naked blokes in the Gay Times or Heat. Objectification is trying to put words in peoples mouths, it's telling them how they should think and behave, where at the end of the day it's just one massive assumption.

It seems that our different interpretations of how useful this theory is are down to a different understanding of how people think and behave then.

You see individuals with full agency who make rational decisions regardless of the culture they find themselves in?

I see individuals who feel as though they have full agency and make rational decisions, and who do to some extent, but who are also influenced all the time by other things (like prevailing social norms for example) in ways that don't always happen consciously. It is subconscious. As an added complication, I think that it is impossible to tell how much influence each of these influences has at any particular time for any given person.

I can't say i know of anyone who display that kind of behaviour other than normal physical attraction

Me neither, but then how do we agree upon a definition of what is 'normal'? What evidence do we have about what men are thinking to allow us know whether they see women in a 'normal' way or not? And vice versa, of course. How often have you heard a man say something like "look at the tits on that"? Or "I'd smash that" or some other distasteful way of indicating that they think a woman (or a picture of one) is a woman they find attractive physically? When they are looking at an attractive woman, they may not think of what they are doing and saying as objectification, but it might be objectification nonetheless.

Acknowledging that many people seem to think in this way isn't blaming them or penalising them for it, it's just acknowledging that many people seem to think this way.

So in my mind, challenging the culture of objectification that seems to be created by Podium Girls and Page 3 isn't punishing everyone so that the deviant minority can be punished, it's trying to bring those unconscious assumptions to light, so that as a society was can say: No! Hang on! We wish to enjoy sexual attraction, but we do not want women reduced to attractive body parts that are implicitly mocked for being nothing but attractive body parts (this isn't in the mind of the viewer, this is the fault of how they are presented, but it becomes a part of those factors that influence us subconsciously).

It's not saying that men will never be allowed to look at pictures of attractive women ever again because some prudish feminists object. It's saying why do those images have to present women in the way that they do? In the example of Page 3 and Podium Girls, they're presented as pretty things to be looked down upon because pretty is all they are. And sadly, that bleeds into our culture.

And finally, if you've got this far without falling asleep, you ask Why is it not a problem with individuals? Why blame the majority? This goes back to the nanny state way of thinking where a few people misbehave, so the majority have to penalised.

We do this all the time in society! Car insurance being an example. Everyone has to have it, because some people are reckless or make a mistake. Seems to me that this is a similar thing, yet most of us accept car insurance as a necessary evil for the greater good, because we or someone we car about might need it. And because it's the law!

These two examples might be different. If you think so, perhaps you could explain? My explanation for why it's fine to punish the majority by making them have car insurance so that the minority who crash are protected financially is partly that the idea has been around for longer, so it's accepted. And partly, that protecting the integrity of money and property is valued much more highly by our society than protecting women sad

*care about, not car about

scallopsrgreat Tue 09-Jul-13 12:32:46

I can't say i know of anyone who display that kind of behaviour other than normal physical attraction

The Everday Sexism Project are being inundated with examples of this type of behaviour. Here is a taster from Bartoli winning Wimbledon:

https://twitter.com/EverydaySexism/status/353537169354276865/photo/1 And that was just the tip of the iceberg.

scallopsrgreat Tue 09-Jul-13 12:35:17

Every time a bloke cat calls a woman on the street, that is objectification. He feels entitled to impose his thoughts and feelings on a woman without thinking or caring about her thoughts or feelings. That isn't "physical attraction" it is objectification. The woman is an object there for the man's pleasure (or displeasure depending on the nature of the harrassment).

grimbletart Tue 09-Jul-13 12:37:17

Steady on there Buffy - you are bringing logic and objectivity into the debate...grin

I do not believe that there is such a thing as objectivity grimbletart grin

libertarianj Tue 09-Jul-13 13:51:44

I think that it is impossible to tell how much influence each of these influences has at any particular time for any given person.

exactly which is why the objectification assumption falls down.

Also of those idiots in that twitter link, how do you know it is down to societies influence that has led them to make those comments? There could be all manner of reasons to why they are acting like they do.

It's not saying that men will never be allowed to look at pictures of attractive women ever again because some prudish feminists object. It's saying why do those images have to present women in the way that they do? In the example of Page 3 and Podium Girls, they're presented as pretty things to be looked down upon because pretty is all they are. And sadly, that bleeds into our culture.
Looked down upon? by who? how do you know this? Sorry but this is just one assumption after another.
I notice that you conveniently choose to omit the boy bands and Heat magazine models i mentioned earlier. Not wanting to talk about those?

With your example of car insurance, well there is a clear defined link that driving cars will inevitably result in accidents, however banning page 3 or podium girls for example is different matter as there is no reliable evidence to say that it would reduce sexism or objectification.

scallopsrgreat Tue 09-Jul-13 14:05:34

Also of those idiots in that twitter link, how do you know it is down to societies influence that has led them to make those comments? There could be all manner of reasons to why they are acting like they do. Ok give us a few then?

exactly which is why the objectification assumption falls down. No it doesn't. Why do you think it does?

Objectifying men isn't going to stop the objectification of women and nor does it negate it.

We have hit the wall of incommensurability libertarianj

We have different ideas about how social reality is defined and therefore different standards about how we believe we can know the truth about it.

Where do we go from here?

libertarianj Tue 09-Jul-13 23:40:40

yeah Buffy we could go around in circles on this one, so probably best leave it there.
However cheers for the debate, it has certainly been interesting.

libertarianj Wed 10-Jul-13 00:06:39

Scallop
Also of those idiots in that twitter link, how do you know it is down to societies influence that has led them to make those comments? There could be all manner of reasons to why they are acting like they do. Ok give us a few then?

their parental upbringing or lack of, love and attention, learning difficulties, low self esteem, drug addiction to name a few..

exactly which is why the objectification assumption falls down. No it doesn't. Why do you think it does?

Please read my previous responses, it's all in there.

Objectifying men isn't going to stop the objectification of women and nor does it negate it.

where did i say anything about objectifying men? (being attracted to men yes) Again please read through my previous responses.

that's it I'm out of here

scallopsrgreat Wed 10-Jul-13 00:43:53

their parental upbringing or lack of, love and attention, learning difficulties, low self esteem, drug addiction to name a few..

And none of those are influenced by society?? Their parental upbringing is part of their societal influence. Why they have low self-esteem would be caused/affected by societal influence. Drug addiction is most definitely caused/influenced by the society they live in. Really you think these things aren't societal? None of us grow up in a vacuum, including our parents and drug dealers. How other people treat us and behave is how we learn to treat others and behave. If men are taught that women are there for their pleasure and to be attractive, that is how they will treat us. And there are innumerable pointers in today's society giving them that message. So no the objectification argument doesn't fall down at all and you have provided no evidence that it does. Just kept repeating it is irrelevant.

The objectification of men comment was in relation to your comment about boy bands and Heat models i.e. the objectification of men confused

scallopsrgreat Wed 10-Jul-13 00:51:00

That first sentence should read "And none of those are influenced by society or form part of society's influence on a person?"

libertarianj Wed 10-Jul-13 03:08:27

And none of those are influenced by society?? Their parental upbringing is part of their societal influence. Why they have low self-esteem would be caused/affected by societal influence. Drug addiction is most definitely caused/influenced by the society they live in. Really you think these things aren't societal? None of us grow up in a vacuum, including our parents and drug dealers. How other people treat us and behave is how we learn to treat others and behave. If men are taught that women are there for their pleasure and to be attractive, that is how they will treat us. And there are innumerable pointers in today's society giving them that message. So no the objectification argument doesn't fall down at all and you have provided no evidence that it does. Just kept repeating it is irrelevant.

Well learning difficulties certainly ain't and drug addiction, well dabbling may be peer pressure influenced, but actually getting addicted is a physical thing dependent on the person. The love and attention given to a child, has naff all to do with society, that is definitely a family thing.

The objectification theory fails as it assumes how people think and doesn't respect individuality, it's a sweeping generalisation. Seriously you can't see this flaw or you just don't want to believe it? and please find me some reliable unbiased evidence that finds a link between exposure to page 3, lads mags, porn etc leading to objectification? I can tell you now there isn't any. It's just Daily Mail esque 'sexualisation of society' scaremongering nonsense. Also i would say sexuality is an inbuilt and very personal thing, wouldn't you? Think about what turns you on? now is that the result of society? I think you lying if you say it is? At the end of the day people like what they like when it comes to sex.

The objectification of men comment was in relation to your comment about boy bands and Heat models i.e. the objectification of men

But that's what you are calling it, I see those things as physical attraction and they a perfectly normal and natural mechanisms and not something sinister, which branding them objectification tries to make them out to be.

scallopsrgreat Wed 10-Jul-13 10:17:44

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

"The objectification theory fails as it assumes how people think and doesn't respect individuality, it's a sweeping generalisation." I must confess I don't even know what this means! Objectification of women is specific recognisable behaviour. It is learned behaviour. It isn't innate. Babies aren't born thinking that females are there to be attractive to them and that is their worth.

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.

Displaying pictures of women (or men) purely based on what they look like is objectification. Is that really so hard to understand?

libertarianj thanks to you as well. I am happy to continue, but we have to recognise that we aren't going in circles we are on parallel lines!

Our eyes see the same thing* (in the sense that we can both see the Podium Girls in their skimpy outfits standing beside the men who have done something requiring skill rather than looks).

It's just that you, like Aristotle, believe that your observations are objective evidence of reality, and I believe that everybody's observations are always interpreted in some way (we have to make sense of them, put them into words, etc) and that this interpretation muddies the waters of a simple 'I see it so it must be true'.

Part of the mud in the water comes from culture, which I believe influences the way that men and women see men and women confused. Do you see what I mean?

Right, I am off to read the rest of the thread now, saw some stuff about drug addiction that looked interesting...

*Or do they? How can we even know that, really?

<strokes beard while gazing into the middle distance>

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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

Makes complete sense to me Buffy

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.

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>

<does penance to the apostrophe goddess>

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.

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

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

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!

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!

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 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.

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

Are you drunk?

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?

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

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?

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.

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).

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

"why you think that" it should say

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 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.

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