Formula 1

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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:

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

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.

Hear, hear Buffy.

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.

*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.

Isn't Formula 1 one

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?

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.