Abstraction!

Yes, exactly. The whole complaint about objectification is, "I'm not being treated as a person, but as an abstraction, a source of sex, or arm candy to show off to friends, maybe even a Madonna on a pedestal, but not me as a real person."

Here's the irony that kills me: the theory of objectification does the exact same thing. Instead of individual realities -- "my boyfriend doesn't listen to me and just wants to do it" -- it makes a general rule about all of society, all men. Then you link it to oppression of women and rape, and of course men tune out. When a discussion starts from the claim that something all men do -- look at women lustfully, without necessarily cherishing them as individuals -- leads to rape, guys are going to conclude that the whole discussion is pointless BS, and they're pretty much right.

Here are some realities: some men stare at women in a creepy way, and pretty much every woman I know has been grossed out by this on more than one occasion. Sometimes, if you challenge a guy who is staring, he gets angry and aggressive. (There's something to the fact that predators stare at prey, but it can be overblown.) A lot of women have been raped and/or attacked, many more than is commonly acknowledged or discussed. And it's a fair guess that actual rapists can act creepy like this, and don't treat women as individuals.

It's not hard to see how that could get abstracted into a general theory of rape culture. But that's when it all goes wrong, because it's not everybody. From a general theory, you can develop all sorts of logical conclusions that are false, because they ignore other important realities. The reality there are very few rapists, and some of them don't act creepy at all. That rape is as much about violence as sex. That most men look at women (and at porn) without committing any sexual offenses or even being creepy. That women also look at men lustfully, without treating them as individuals, all the time. ("Oh my God, don't look now but that guy who just walked in is SO hot.")

I'm sure rapists objectify, but pretty much everyone objectifies, especially when they're school age. We date people for status (because they're cool, or popular), because they're hot, because we share their taste in bands or drugs or politics. Or because they're like our parents -- or different than our parents. It's only with maturity that anyone, man or woman, gets past that and treats their partners as individuals.

Funny!

My brilliant friend Tim Krause recommended this Onion News Network video.

Have a great weekend!

Definition

No, I'm not talking about the fine sculpted torso featured in Mark's earlier post but rather, the definition of objectification.

A quick online search yielded:

The act of representing an abstraction as a physical thing; a concrete representation of an abstract idea or principle.

The process by which abstract concepts are treated as if they were concrete things or physical objects. In this sense the term is a synonym for reification.

The process or manifestation of objectifying (something).

Treated as an object.

The positioning of Others as objects for the benefit of the Self. See Hegel's Master/Slave dialectic.

I am most intrigued by the first definition, that objectification occurs because a concept (such as "woman", "man", or "child") is just too complex to grasp without reducing it to concrete terms.

A cry for our ability to embrace complexity, may depth save our souls.

Upon Reflection...

I had drinks this evening with good friends. I shared my feelings of frustration at my inability to present more than a gut response to the question of whether objectification leads to abuse. Their responses:

Objectification may not lead to rape per se but it is symptomatic of a society in which rape occurs.

Pornography, or any act that compromises a woman's dignity, is wrong not only because it is disrespectful but because it perpetuates an image of inferior women.

Fine food for thought, many thanks to my friends!

Distraction!

Although I was too distracted by that photo to clearly read Mark's post the first few times around, I finally tore my femalegaze away from that fine naked torso to take in the content of his post.

Okay, I admit it: objectification happens to and by us all. I am not driven to attack anyone sexually because I've seen some attractive photographs. And given that, in our society, we are surrounded by pictures of attractive people on various media and most people do not rape other people, there may be no causal relationship between the two events.

Yet I find, even when I intellectually admit that Mark's similes may be true...

(See's Truffles are to Kittens w/cancer
as Objectification is to Rape)

...in my gut, I cling to the connection. I think it's because of how I feel when I see attractive or objectifying photos of women: conflicted. I admire these women for their great looks and their dedication to looking great, yet think less of them for spending so much time on their looks. I might like the clothing, but dislike that I can't afford these outfits; likewise with locations, fabulous places I'm unable to visit.

These photos bring out the worst in me, my insecurities, pettiness, envy. I don't like this mind trip that's been inflicted upon me (I never turn on the television but I can't hardly avoid the supermarket magazine racks). Daily, I am bombarded by images of "beautiful" women. I won't go as far as to say, "it's like rape", but there's a quality of violation. My day is altered by the insertion of celebrated, mass-distributed images that I wish I didn't have to see.

The other horrific part is that, if I give up the notion that objectification leads to abuse, then I'm left with the excuse, "it's human nature." That's too scary. I believe there are actions we can take to deter rape.

Objection!

Of course feminists want the abuse of women to stop. But people who don't call themselves feminists -- and feminists who don't buy the theory of objectification -- want the abuse to stop, too. Which has nothing to do with anything -- some of the worst sexist crimes are justified as ways to prevent women from being attacked (e.g. cultures that force women to stay in the home, not work or go to school).

Meanwhile, a hundred or more kittens have cancer in America today, as we speak. At some point, the fact that I haven't received See's chocolates in years (except for the dreaded nuts and chews) DOES make a difference. Right? Same logic.

Objectification theory is apparently based on the classic South Park dot-com business plan:

Step 1. Men look at women sexually without really knowing them as persons. (Women apparently never do this).
Step 2. Said looks reinforce patriarchy.
Step 3. ???
Step 4. Rape!

Is there any evidence that even one part of that chain is true? Does that sound anything like the reality you experience in daily life?

Objectification ~ Eye Candy

Very funny, and well put, except I take issue with calling objectification a myth. And with the notion that feminists are in it for the money.

Feminists (women and men) are sick at the thought that 1 out of 3 of our mothers, daughters and sisters have been physically abused, and feminists want to figure out what's at the heart of this so we can make it stop. We don't want men to be abused, we don't want anyone to be abused. There are degrees of objectification, some of it is attractive photos of women, some of it is bruised women in bondage, some of it is sexualized little girls. And sexualized little boys.

At some point the images DO make a difference.

Box of truffles on the way.

Objectification, Leading to....?

Great post, honey. The woman in that picture you posted is totally hot!!! Oh wait....

I think you hit the nail on the head with this question: "if objectification of women ... is one of the direct or indirect causes for the disrespect towards women that results in behavior such as rape, slavery, or discrimination, then clearly it needs to be decried."

Exactly. That's the big if. And if everyone's failure to send me See's dark chocolate truffles causes cancer in kittens, then you all need to get off the stick, you selfish monsters! (Dark butter creams save kitties just as effectively, by the way.)

The objectification myth is very powerful and manipulative rhetoric. By tying something universal and inevitable -- looking with sexual interest -- to one of the most horrible crimes known to man, via a vague but sort-of plausible theory, feminist ideologues have created a cause that can't be debunked (or won). As long as humans like to look at (and be) attractive people, there will be media "objectification" for them to criticize, safe in the knowledge that nothing will ever change.

The only problem is that this discussion does nothing to reduce rape, and distracts everyone from the reality of gender in the world.

Objectification 2

(this is a "graduated" post of an earlier comment, with additional info)

Can men have the same privilege too, asks Mark? I have two responses.

One, men are not the only ones who publish or promote images which objectify women.

Two, although these statistics are a bit dated, I imagine they present a relevant picture of circumstances in the US (I'll look for ones more current):

An estimated 91% of victims of rape are female, 9% are male and 99% of offenders are male (Bureau of Justice Statistics 1999). This statistic is found among a host of others, compiled by UCSC's Rape Prevention Education program.

I agree with you that objectification occurs in all directions, and it is hypocritical to object only when it is directed at women.

However, if objectification of women (and yes, we need to discuss this term at greater length) is one of the direct or indirect causes for the disrespect towards women that results in behavior such as rape, slavery, or discrimination, then clearly it needs to be decried.

Objectification may affect or influence its varied audiences in different ways and have different repercussions for its diverse subjects.

Ultimately, my answer to your question is simply another question: can women can have the same privilege of being objectified without it leading to abuse, please?

Objectification

Regular readers know I find most feminist complaints of "objectification" kind of hypocritical, vague and just off-base. Especially concerning e.g. ads in magazines aimed at women. (I'm definitely not speaking for Olga here.)

Judith Warner's column in today's NYT is a great example of mental backflips justifying why it's nonetheless OK for her to ogle Obama without making her less intellectual, high-minded, etc.

Of course it's OK. We all desire, as well as think. No one's accusing her of starting down a slippery slope that leads to rape and battering. Why aren't men given the privilege of that same benefit of the doubt?

Slavery

I read Mark's post about the rape kit backlog and searched for information on the situation here in Oregon. I was only able to locate information for 2003. Apparently it's not as bad as the circumstances in CA; our state's backlog is 10 weeks according to this report. The next step is to contact my Congresspeople, as Mark suggests and let them know this is on my mind, that I am outraged. I suppose this will make a difference, assuming others will also write about their outrage. But I have a feeling it may not and this saddens me.

I search on, find other blogs that focus on human rights abuses around the world and am reminded that for me the very worst crime is sex slavery of children. I will never forget the night I read a story in the NY Times Magazine that opened my eyes ~ I had no idea this was happening in our world, I am naive and obviously protected. Needless to say, I didn't sleep that night, wondering what I could do to stop this depravity, wanting to run to the border to rescue children. The next day I went to work as usual, though I've never been the same.

Two posts on Diane Beeler's It Dawned on Me blog that caught my attention and expressed so many critical concerns:

It Dawned On Me

What Price for the Sale of a Child?

I cannot compare my life to the lives of these deeply wounded children, women and men who have been abused physically and mentally, tortured by their captors to the point where neither the victim's freedom nor their captor's incarceration can erase the scars and fear that lingers on in the victims. So many simply report that they are now "dead".

But I am also a slave of my own weakness. Not knowing if there's a way to truly help, I do little to fight any of this. I have a million reasons why other tasks take precedence ~ things that propel me forward in life, into happiness. Perhaps it is because this work plunges me into despair that I avoid it.

None of us are free until all of us are free.

Rape Kits

DNA testing of rape kits -- the physical evidence collected from victims' bodies -- can result in indentifying and convicting rapists even when police have no leads. The hard scientific evidence cuts through a lot of the horrific attacks on rape victims that defense lawyers often pull at trial.

And yet -- many police departments don't even process all of their rape kits, or wait so long that the statute of limitations expires. The National Institute of Justice estimates that 400,000 rape kits sit untested nationwide. Human Rights Watch reported that in Los Angeles, which has the nation's worst backlog, 12,669 untested rape kits are sitting in storage, nearly 10 years backlog. The arrest rate for reported rapes has dropped from 30% in 1999 to 25% in 2007.

I simply can't understand this. Police excuses are weak at best -- tight budgets, mumblings rape cases being complicated. Some bloggers are too quick to cry sexism over minor issues, but I don't know what else could explain this. (Ideas, anyone?)

After a rape victim testified about this issue before Congress in 2001, money was appropriated to help clear the backlog and beef up DNA labs. But rape is consistently de-prioritized compared to other crimes. The law was amended to let the money be used for any crime, and half the states have not even spent all of their money.

The weird thing is that, unlike most political issues, this has a simple solution: test the rape kits promptly. New York City eliminated its backlog of 16,000 rape kits in 3 years, and found over 2,000 "cold hits" -- matches to otherwise unsuspected criminals -- as a result. It also adopted policies to make sure that kits are processed within 60 days of collection. The arrest rate for reported cases of rape went up from 40% to 70%.

Thanks to HRW researcher Sarah Tofte and Nicholas Kristoff of the NYT for bringing this to light. Why hasn't it been picked up more? Why aren't politicians, right and left, tackling this obvious law-and-order problem with an easy fix?

If there was ever an issue worth contacting your Senator or Congressperson about, this is it. Insist they follow researcher Sarah Tofte's recommendations: 1) Require at least 30% of the DNA testing grants go to rape kits; 2) require states to report how many kits they processed, and how many are backlogged; and 3) allow states to pay private labs for DNA testing.

And press your local police department on whether they have a backlog, and why.