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.
I like the dialogue you two are having - makes me think of the father-son dialog in the music blog Breath of Life: http://www.kalamu.com/bol/
ReplyDeleteIn terms of objectification, a related theory-related area is Gaze:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaze
Thanks, Larry-bob. As a matter of fact, it was a discussion of the Male Gaze and Mulvey's essay (on Metafilter) that got me riled up about objectification in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI definitely owe her a post, though it won't be very positive. ;) That Metafilter article is a mess!! Did you read the discussion page? It looks like it could use both of our help. Kind of striking that there is nothing about the queer gaze on it, as if being gay doesn't change the dynamic in any important way.
Do you know the historical origin of the objectification theory? So many people I know treat it as fact. I suppose it could be from Mulvey herselft, but her essay is so impenetrable (convoluted? poorly written?) that I'm not sure anyone really knows.