From another thread and not wanting to go off topic there too much: A start of a discussion between Arc and I about the objectification of women :
You know Arc, I would have agreed with you in the past but, now I can’t. After alot of reading, observing and thinking I see that women allow themselves to be seen as objects and others do not. It is this way in many cultures. Hmm, another thread maybe?
I totally agree with you, Kris. It is a two-way street. I wonder who is to blame for this? I think that we can begin with the parents.
The parental influence is crucial or it was. I am not quite sure if the parent influences as much as they should, in so many cases society makes and breaks young egos.
Not only women, but many men objectifies themselves too. It is not a gender issue but psycological one, even both genders of the amimals do that. This is the natural instict in all living beings to attract the best from the opposite gender to be their partner.
It is not the problem unless one does not overdo it and keeps it himself/herself only. But, when someone starts doing it for any particular gender in general, like in advertizements, it is certainly a problem.
Anyone care to more clearly define or explain exactly what “being objectified” is to mean here, BEFORE we start making judgments and casting blame? Or would that defeat the purpose?
Kris, following the first link I read that article and ask myself if that is really still an issue.To me it seems like another attempt of feminists to ‘victimize’ women. Personally I don’t know any women who feel like objects. But if there are, then make those people responsible who tell women that there is no difference between them and men, so that many women go around half-naked to be recognized as women. Of course this has been sold to us as the “freedom of emancipation” to dress (as less) as we want and that any man who looks first at your cleavage and then in your eyes is a sexist.
It’s just propaganda to me. Propaganda of feminists, and they are tools as well.
Amongst all these feminized men around, who even dares to ‘think’ of women as objects?
This issue, as with almost all issues of the day, arises due to everyone trying to manipulate the attitudes of the majority to their own perceived favor (almost always misdirected), and usually by any means (amorally). It is a type of chess game for who gets to control the whole world.
How people view others, “reputation”, is a primary concern and tool for manipulators and would-be world dominators (the whole purpose of “propaganda” and public records). But the problem isn’t so much what tools they use, but rather the actual goal they intend. The effort to dominate the world requires inspiring people to attack other people, for any reason at all. Feminists are merely a chess piece.
The responsibility involved is one of individual willingness to be manipulated. And even if there is a very low willingness, there is a limited ability to prevent it. And that is why it continues.
The female is notably more willing and capable of being manipulated. If not for that feature, there would be no human race at all. And a part of the higher strategy is to reduce the human race. So by inspiring women to be less willing to be manipulated and inspiring males to be less capable of manipulating, the population of humans is reduced. Of course those manipulating that game do not participate and thus grow rather than reduce. Population reduction is for the “unworthy”, not the “chosen”. The point is to make more room for the “chosen”.
The question then arises as to how to get out of the game of manipulation if not one of the chosen. The anticipated response, going by the plan, is for everyone to try to become a manipulator themselves, to “exercise their will-to-power”. The very fuel that causes the problem inspires more fuel for the problem. It is a self-feeding process, a forest fire, so it continues until there is no more to be burned. At that point, the land is free to claim by those who didn’t participate - the “chosen”.
Of course if one chooses to not be a manipulator, they have reason to be concerned that the preponderance of other manipulators will manipulate them. How can one prevent being manipulated? That is the exact same question as “How can I know the Truth?” And it actually has the same answer. If you cannot recognize one, you cannot know the other.
I am so glad I don’t live in your mind.
I think a little less population can be a good thing.
I think also that evolving past sexual manipulation helps evolve both genders. Game playing does not create good bonds between two.
Less population isn’t the issue. The issue is how it is achieved.
And the only “evolving past sexual manipulation” comes through an education of the social engineers who are too busy doing to others what they already know is perfectly right and justified, and thus are incapable of learning. They know that they cannot manipulate the gene pool without sexual manipulation “game playing”. They don’t know, and seriously don’t care, that they have no need to play with the gene pool.
Interesting how this conversation turned to social manipulation, but I like it.
That process seems inevitable, and it’s well worth considering. I would have said unless each individual live entirely self sufficiently and for example only interact by clear request and affirmation (which is a pure fantasy world of course, because that isn’t human nature). But even under those conditions it seems impossible, because human children remain helpless for so long, and humanity is not readily compatible with nature — we need to transmit culture and skills to our children so they can navigate the world. In this way we end up forming them, there is already a taking for granted some of those qualifications of objectifying:
There is no clear cut off period — now you are a child, now you are a knowledgable adult. In the roles of parenthood we look over the choices our children make and tell them no when we feel they are putting themselves in danger, for example… As our culture develops this process becomes more complicated. A crude example is telling your children they must stay in school and/or get a good job, because another life route could be hazardous, thus we remove their autonomy. The denial of subjectivity fits in there, when a child doesn’t like something but we say “It’s good for you”, or “You need to”… and any type of moral boundary becomes blurry, even any consideration of natural law, because you might think, maybe I should let them go as they wish… but perhaps they are making immature decisions — is it your place as a parent to guide them? should you let them make mistakes? When does the age change, and how do you know that moment has been reached? Even those questions presume a level of prudence that many adults might be incapable of, there is no guarentee that an adult might not lead a child into a hazardous situation with the best intentions.
These also seem inevitable among all people. Particularly fungability, that seems to be something everyone does with most people in their lives, even in otherwise natural relations. A natural relation might be less-fungible but there is probably still a threshold even if it has greater elasticity. It is just expectations we have that must be fulfilled to at least a minimum… Even parents or children could be interchangable depending with other objects of comfort/support under some particular circumstances… Probably parents feeling for their children and in particular in some parents are the strongest.
Also, as regards the thread title, the responsibility of how others view us is a shifting thing, if we are viewed by many people at one time, the same action could result a number of different views of ourselves, one might think we are idiotic, another brave, another crafty, and so on, depending what preconceptions, expectations, etc. they bring to their own perception of you.
That being said, people do try to project a certain image (generally this is based on adhering to preconceived models and roles, duplicating them). Even that could result in different perceptions, people could react to different images differently, based on the above considerations. A girl (example being used due to the discussion above) who dresses scantily, could be viewed as slutty, or brave, or without any connotation depending on the cultural conditioning of the perceiver (without connotations might be harder to imagine for us who are immersed in cultural stereotypes, but for example if a girl was wearing some kind of tribal outfit in a city or else among a tribe the experience would be vastly different. There may still be judgement of the girl but it might be based less off of the particular presentation relating to the articles of clothing).
I might tentatively say, if you are aware of the cultural expectations of the location you find yourself in, and you are capable of manipulating your appearance (either physically or through your actions/personality) you possess a degree of “responsibility” for how people perceive you — but even then it must be qualified because within a homogenous culture different interpretations are still possible.
Whether that category of “responsibility” demands a moral imperative is another question. I personally don’t think there is a moral imperative. If one is aware of cultural expectations, stereotypes and so forth, and is capable of manipulating ones appearance, it may be prudent to do so to acheive certain ends.
(When I say capable of that manipulation it is dependent on various factors. If it is a matter of dress, one must posses the money, or even access to articles of clothing, accessories etc… it may also be physical characteristics of anatomy, and things like personality may be more or less difficult for some people to change than others.)
Very nice post, thank you.
Parental influence is waning compared to peer and society influence which is waxing greatly. These little machines we use to communicate has caused a great shift in young minds. Of course this is only mostly true in countries where the lower economic homes also have access to technology. As we reach puberty family becomes less influencing (in general) and classmates/friends gain influence. A very large case of the blind leading the blind. Add to classmates the very tantalizing internet universe, it is easy to see young egos bloom or wilt. Or just fight blindly for a place. Manipulation and objectification dominate the young minds, lead or follow. Even the highly intelligent fall prey. Ever notice the amount of quoting and following of the published people is done? Instead of using works as a ladder they use it as a base. We all do to a point admittedly but, conversation on forums are society and have hierarchy interestngly enough.
Women all around the world objectify themselves how they act, behave, judge, and carry themselves in human civilization. Men just act accordingly calling a spade a spade.
Women have nobody to blame not even men but instead only themselves.
Now commence the rabid feministas and manginas in the thread.
Manipulate - To tamper with or falsify for personal gain + To influence or manage shrewdly or deviously
Influence - To affect the nature, development, or condition of; modify. + A power affecting a person, thing, or course of events
=
Manipulation has negative connotations. It’s associated with falseness, hidden agendas, and abuse.
I think someone can influence another person without manipulating them.
If someone presents their agenda openly and offers evidence / reason for others to be interested in it - I wouldn’t call that manipulation.
If they are respectful, honest and fair to the interests of the other - I wouldn’t call this manipulation.
One could seek to influence others to be able to act in their own self interest. To empower them. To give them the capacity to think critically and understand their environment.
This isn’t manipulation.
And if one has the capacity to protect themselves, then they won’t be susceptible to manipulation and can make their own decisions.
All without the need to resort to using the methods that one is seeking to get away from - manipulation.
The way you worded it makes the males moronic tools, at least it can be very easily read that way. We can easily edit these posts after, if you choose to reword.
