Warwick University rowing club women's team calendar

Both of 'em...

Good Point Phasers

And I am also aware that any harassment that women experience due to the way they dress is a problem owned by the harasser, not the women themselves, and the harasser should fix their own behaviour. Just so we are clear on that.

But that is the difficult bit, isn't it? Some people see this as objectification, and some do not. And if the participants don't see it, then it will not stop. And other than talking to the participants, and trying to convince them with the logic of your argument, you cannot stop it.

And now I am wondering about women who put themselves 'on display' in other walks of life. What about women who go out socially displaying copious amounts of flesh? Granted, they are not naked, but legs, bums and tits are almost out. They dress how they want, to please themselves, as they should. Presumably they are happy with a certain level of admiring glances and a certain level of (mostly) male attention. Are short skirts and tight tops on a Saturday night also adding to the problem? Are these women aware of how they may be adding to a problem in society?? How does it differ from the calendar? And if so, should this be (voluntarily) curtailed until the prevailing prejudices in our society have disappeared?

(disclaimer: this is about women being able to dress how they want, free from harassment. It is not telling them they are asking for it or other such shite)

Do you know what would be great, rather than these circular arguments? Get one of the rowers on here, and people could question them directly. Far more interesting than others making assumptions about their motives. I'd also love to see a direct conversation between the rowers and those who object to the calendar.

Eroticism =/= objectification.

Try again.

FloraFox: the pictures from my link are not, in my view objectifying the subjects, other than the women in the sexy poses. The subjects are well-known athletes who are being celebrated for their achievements, pictured in athletic poses, they are not interchangeable

Heroic realism and the heroic nude as a mask for eroticism. Yea, being well known also helps for that particular mask.

Haha i just knew this thread would descend into the usual 'it objectifies women' bullshit. Even these innocent nude photos cause you to take offence and get on your high horses. Do you not realise that you are just marginalising yourself even more with all this petiteness?

Sabrina
Of course, to most of us on this forum, the fact that women are treated as the decorative class, the sex class, and expected to conform to patriarchal concepts of beauty, makes us want to get some fresh air.

rubbish it's not a fact, it's what you and a few radical 'so called feminist' organisations (cults) have decided to preach and pass it off as speaking for all women.

Because women shouldn't be judged on their beauty alone.

and again they aren't by most persons, that is an assumption on your behalf. I think if you were to take the blinkers off and you would realise people have a bit more depth than that.

Also Yougotbale great posts totally agree.

Also, there will be people that will fit a stereotype. It doesn't make them against their group and it doesn't make them any less valuable to that group

Flora - thanks for taking time to answer. I know there was a lot of questions.
I suppose it all comes down to how the images are perceived by its viewer. Maybe some one could interpret a photo of a woman cooking as having negative social impact. Others may see a photo of a hetero couple where the woman is clutching on to the fella as having a negative social impact.
It was interesting to me that naked images tend to get more feminist attention than others (maybe it is because they get picked up by the media first).
I think the male photo enforce a male stereotype. Which indirectly doesn't help your cause.

It's all in the perception of an image

Yougotbale

Objectification, choice, exploitation and social roles are separate but connected concepts which have feminist as well as more general political and philosophical implications.

Wikipedia is useful to get the basic concepts of objectification:

Objectification generally: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectification

Sexual objectification: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification

It is also important to think about these issues at a personal and a class level. A person may be objectified on an individual level and this may or may not reinforce the objectification of a class of persons. The issue of choice is not relevant to the issue of objectification (although they may overlap). Images of semi-naked men could objectify an individual man but in our society, the picture would not contribute to the objectification of men as a class because men as a class in our society are not pigeonholed as the decorative sex class. (I'm meh about pictures of men; if men are concerned that there is a move towards men being relegated to the decorative sex class or object to individual objectification then by all means, they can object to those pictures.) Similarly not all naked pictures of women objectify either the individual woman nor contribute to the objectification of women as a class (e.g. the non-sexual athletes' photos).

A picture of a person reinforcing a social role is not necessarily objectification although feminists might object to it for reinforcing a social role if it suggests that the role is innate.

AutumnMadness the pictures from my link are not, in my view objectifying the subjects, other than the women in the sexy poses. The subjects are well-known athletes who are being celebrated for their achievements, pictured in athletic poses, they are not interchangeable. I don't agree the question is about beauty.

Yougotbale if women were liberated from oppression (this is not the same as equality or roles being the same), there could still be objectification at an individual level but this would not contribute to the subjugation of women which is partially achieved by women as a class being reduced to being the decorative sex.

Looking at choice, no-one has said these women did not choose to do this freely. Their choices were, of course, influenced by society's norms and values, as our choices often are. I'm not really concerned about the issue of their individual choice in this case. I would agree that these women and women generally can make a free choice to be objectified at an individual level. They can't choose how these pictures will contribute to the continued objectification of women as a class, that is at the societal level and not within their control.

As individuals, we help to shape society in the choices we make and we can change our society by our choices. For example, casual racist comments have declined enormously over the past 30 years. One factor in that has been individuals choosing to disapprove of racist comments by others and choosing not to make racist comments themselves. A black actor portraying a character imbued with unreconstructed and unexamined racist stereotypes could be making a free choice to do so but this choice would negatively reinforce racist stereotypes. A woman making a choice which contributes to the continued objectification of women as a decorative sex class is not making a feminist choice.

Sorry for the screed.

This discussion is going nowhere, because, IMHO, it's not asking the right questions. I really think we can agree that the Warwick calendar has very little to do with porn and sexual exploitation. The women in it are not coerced into participation through poverty, disease, addiction, childhood abuse, their health and lives are not in any danger, their social status will not be affected, etc, etc. The show of bodies is also not inappropriate in the sense that the women are engaged in a bodily, physical activity - sport. If they were naked secretaries or brain surgeons, it would be seriously stupid and degrading (unless some kind of very clever "ironic" point was being made, but these are rare as with the original WI calendar).

What I think the question is about is beauty. I do not think it matters that the women in the calendar are naked. Would it be better if they were clothed, but the photos were shot in the way that made it clear that the viewer is to appreciate the women's beauty and not just observe who is sitting in the boat? Would it be better, for instance, if the women were dressed in ball gowns? FloraFox, you posted some pictures earlier that were "celebrating human athletic physique". Were you ok with those? It is acceptable to celebrate the extreme athletic physique but not other kinds of bodies? (this is not a dig, but a genuine question)

When I look at this calendar (the viewer is me - female!), I find them "beautiful". I am not sure what this means, but it is a pleasant aesthetic experience. I find them beautiful in the way I would find a picture of an autumn tree, glossy cat, starry sky, or, for that matter, a painting of a clothed woman/man beautiful. I do not see them as sexual. I do not want to have sex with them. I do not think less of their morals or intellectual abilities. So I do not see in what way my pleasure exploits them.

I do definitely see the point that my perspective is just mine, and that there are tons of people out there whose pleasure would definitely be exploitative. However, there does seem to be a semblance between saying this to argue that the calendar is exploitative in its essence and saying that women should cover up or they risk being raped.

Flora - we both agree we want women to be in control. How do you know that these students were not in control? Or, for example, a woman has chosen to be a SAHM. Both of these would reinforce the societal roles given to women, in your opinion.
Would you say that as society is now, no woman can chose to or be in control of any action that reinforces the role women have been given within that society?

At what point would a woman be in control in the future? / what point would a woman's actions not be judged as damaging when choosing to reinforce a 'woman's role', what progress?

Flora - can objectification be any image that reinforces social roles as they are now? For both men and women?

Is it because the images are of naked women that seperates them clothed images. Many images of people, with no background info, are open to judgement of there appearance/beauty.

If societies roles, for men and women, were the same. Then you are saying that calendar would not objectify, technically. However, they would historically.

sabrina Bye bye martinedwards

Yougotbale ^"Flora - do you think there will ever be a time when these or any images of naked women (or men) will be acceptable? Be that a completely equal society for all or a matriarchal society (in theory)?
Or do you think that even in an equal society for all it is too hard to seperate the 'implied sexiness' of the images from say just a naked body."^

Naked images of anyone don't figure much in my aspirations for society. However, in a society where women are liberated from oppression (my aspiration - neither "equality" nor matriarchy). I'm not sure why you've mentioned "implied sexiness" in quotes. The problem is not "sexiness" for feminists and this is where feminists differ from puritanical conservatives. The objection is not on "implied sexiness" but on reinforcing social roles of women as the decorative sex class. Better women than me have characterised the difference as being that, when it comes to sex, right wing men want each woman to be the private property of one man whereas left wing men want women to be the public property of all men. Feminists want neither, for women to be under their own control.

Ok, what about the first question?

Would you rather there were no photos of anyone where it could be used to judge a persons appearance?

Can I stick my feminist hand up and say I don't think firemen calendars are any different.

Personally, until we get true balance of the genders in everything. Until there's no exploitation of women or children in the sex/porn industry so we know every participant is there absolutely of their own free will because they enjoy it, not because they need the money/drugs/not to be beaten again. Until it is agreed that sexually provocative images will contain equal numbers of men and women when used to sell something. Until that time, there should be no-one appearing naked or scantily clad in any type of media anywhere.

But I accept that hell will have long frozen over before this ever happens.

It's not 'an equal for all' society, Baley. Love that it were.

Sab - they shouldn't be judged on that alone, no one should. Would you rather there were no photos of anyone where it could be used to judge a persons appearance?

And in an equal for all society, would you be happy with images of people that could be used to judge a persons appearance?

Of course, to most of us on this forum, the fact that women are treated as the decorative class, the sex class, and expected to conform to patriarchal concepts of beauty, makes us want to get some fresh air.

Because women shouldn't be judged on their beauty alone.

If you do, make sure you recycle the wire