Empowered VS Objectified

[Kurotsune]

Welcome to Kurotsune rambles on about stuff! In today's episode, xe won't ramble at all!

There was a conversation in Showdown about objectification of females and female characters in fiction, specially video-games.

By coincidence, today I stumbled upon a very interesting comic strip of one Ronnie Ritche about the difference between empowerment versus objectification.

Thus, rather than speak of it myself, I'll let the picture say it's thousand words:

This strip explains why certain videogame characters - Such as Bayonetta - are considered empowered, while Bioshock's Elizabeth or Tomb Raider's Lara Croft are objectified.

Hopefully this will spur on reflection and discussion, and I'll see you next time on Kurotsune rambles on about stuff no one will read anyway!

/talkshow music plays

PS: Source

[samekh]

Hah, "objectification".

Such a loaded word now-a-days. Mainly because a certain group's agenda and merrymaking. And certainly misused in the mainstream media and said group.

News Flash: Every single human being on this planet "objectifies". It's part of our psicological construction and the way we perceive and recognize the world around us.

Men, women, gay, straight, whatever in between - we all do it.

We do it everyday, on the bus, while watching TV, etc.

Oh well, seems to me certain parts of the world have become overrun by the politicaly correct police (here's looking at you US and certain parts of Europe).

Everyone and everything just has to behave and be inside a certain norm. Just seems to be like another form of branding and control to me.

Seems to me that there are more important issues going around in the world that mere basic human psicology functions.

tl;dr - everyone "objectifies", don't worry about non-issues, worry about real problems

[Neo]

Hah, "objectification".

Such a loaded word now-a-days. Mainly because a certain group's agenda and merrymaking. And certainly misused in the mainstream media and said group.

News Flash: Every single human being on this planet "objectifies". It's part of our psicological construction and the way we perceive and recognize the world around us.

Men, women, gay, straight, whatever in between - we all do it.

We do it everyday, on the bus, while watching TV, etc.

Oh well, seems to me certain parts of the world have become overrun by the politicaly correct police (here's looking at you US and certain parts of Europe).

Everyone and everything just has to behave and be inside a certain norm. Just seems to be like another form of branding and control to me.

Seems to me that there are more important issues going around in the world that mere basic human psicology functions.

tl;dr - everyone "objectifies", don't worry about non-issues, worry about real problems

1) Just because everyone does it, doesn't make it correct.

2) Those who learn about and are able to recognize their harmful behavior don't do it.

3) That 'politically correct' argument is trash, and has been used to oppose everything from women's suffrage to civil rights

4) Objectification is a pretty big issue as it contributes to rape culture.

[Kurotsune]

Hah, "objectification".

Such a loaded word now-a-days. Mainly because a certain group's agenda and merrymaking. And certainly misused in the mainstream media and said group.

News Flash: Every single human being on this planet "objectifies". It's part of our psicological construction and the way we perceive and recognize the world around us.

Men, women, gay, straight, whatever in between - we all do it.

We do it everyday, on the bus, while watching TV, etc.

Oh well, seems to me certain parts of the world have become overrun by the politicaly correct police (here's looking at you US and certain parts of Europe).

Everyone and everything just has to behave and be inside a certain norm. Just seems to be like another form of branding and control to me.

Seems to me that there are more important issues going around in the world that mere basic human psicology functions.

tl;dr - everyone "objectifies", don't worry about non-issues, worry about real problems

It was Mark Twain who said it was best to keep one's mouth closed and leave others wondering if they're a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

I'll address your ludicrous statement that objectification is a non-issue. Objectification is seeing another person without dignity, it's the de-humanization of this person and the treatment of them as not a living being, but an object. Nearly all wars have been caused directly due to the dehumanization of the parties by the other side. The Nazis de-humanized the jewish which is why they treated them like cattle. ISIS de-humanizes and demonizes western society and attacks exactly because we are seen as objects with no value. The de-humanization and social isolation of the poor is a leading cause for violence and robbery worldwide. The objectification of our peers is the reason why there's people starving to death on the streets - Because no one cares.

To say objectification is a non-issue is to show a severe lack of insight of what challenges modern society faces. Social isolation, generalization, cultural clashes and cultural wars are all a consequence of objectification. Think for a second: If the other person actually saw a human being, with family, friends, dreams and ambitions as a person, would a normal person pull the trigger? They would not. We dehumanize so we can kill, and we objectify so we can kill.

Sexual objectification may be only the tip of the iceberg, but to say it's a non-issue is to say an american woman's 25% odds of being raped at least once in her lifetime is a non-issue. It's to say the staggering 9,2% annual reported cases of child-molestation is a non-issue.

Hell, it's to say the odds of 20% (if female) and 5% (if male) of rape in children is a non-issue.

You may say that sexual objectification of women isn't related to this, but is it not? Not only is the sexual objectification of the female gender in general directly related to rape, it promotes rape culture.

Objectification is not a non-issue.

[Shamitako]

-snip-

Though I disagree with a lot of what was said, the tone this post is made in is absolutely gorgeous

[samekh]

Seems that my post was quite inflamatory.

Good. It was written to have such an impact.

However it seems that my snark was misurderstood.

The point I was trying to make was that objectification - seeing a multifactorial, living being as a simple abstract construction made of only a couple of attributes - is an universal fenomenon observed in all mankind. It is part of our psyche. Of our brain's way to simplify the world around us.

We objectify plants, animals, people, reality itself. It is a part of our conceptual constrution.

That's why I used the quotes around objectification - because most people use it erroneously, since it has been misused by the recent "feminist" movement (there's those quotes again).

So Kurotsune, here the both us come at an odds. When you say:

Objectification is seeing another person without dignity, it's the de-humanization of this person and the treatment of them as not a living being, but an object. Nearly all wars have been caused directly due to the dehumanization of the parties by the other side. The Nazis de-humanized the jewish which is why they treated them like cattle. ISIS de-humanizes and demonizes western society and attacks exactly because we are seen as objects with no value. The de-humanization and social isolation of the poor is a leading cause for violence and robbery worldwide. The objectification of our peers is the reason why there's people starving to death on the streets - Because no one cares.

I would change the term to empathy - Empathy is the capacity to understand what another person is experiencing from within the other person's frame of reference, ie, the capacity to place oneself in another's shoes.

What you say here:

To say objectification is a non-issue is to show a severe lack of insight of what challenges modern society faces. Social isolation, generalization, cultural clashes and cultural wars are all a consequence of objectification. Think for a second: If the other person actually saw a human being, with family, friends, dreams and ambitions as a person, would a normal person pull the trigger? They would not. We dehumanize so we can kill, and we objectify so we can kill.

Everything you said in your post (and said very well) could be said to be atributted to a lack of empathy - war, famine, rape, hate...

Also, one could argue:

"But objectifying a person is showing a lack of empathy!"

Yes and no. We all objectify at a first glance, so that would depend on what happens after that first evaluation. Humans are visual, visceral creatures - we take those visual qeues and make assumptions based on them.

And I can understand why people would use "objectification" as the go-to concept instead of empathy:

Empathy requires one to look inside - to compare, contrast their feelings; and to most of the time you're confronted with the facts and feelings that most people can't really digest properly (I can't relate to him/her because he/she reminds me of my father, who mistreated me, i.e.)

Objectification is such a simple process - the other is there: he's black, or a woman, or gay so he has all these challenges, so I have to be nice to him/her.

One is a path of introspection and the other is simple observation.

It doesn't help the fact certain powers that be are actively trying to generate dissent but no solutions to social issues (#banmeanwords)

The terms and concepts we use are very important. They show how we truly perceive the problem at hand.

So Kurotsune, I maintain that yes, objectification is a non-issue.

However, lack of empathy... Well, that's why the world is in the state it is now, isn't it?

[Kurotsune]

Tl;dr

Lack of empathy has a definition, it's called indifference. And in fact a word I've used before. If we're to take the meaning of the words... Objectification is indifference towards the other, and indifference is lack of empathy. So is generalization, for that matter, which is what you've described in the first half of your message.

You say you wrote your post to cause impact, yet your end-goal is discussing semantics. I'd like the discussion to remain in the realm of anthropology, if at all possible, as is the purpose of this thread.

Objectification is not a new study. Marx called it reification (though the original german term translated directly into objectification), and was a critical part of why, in Marx's view, the proletariat suffered (Though it was Lukags, in his book on the matter, who greatly expanded upon the study).

Reification, objectification, generalization, lack of empathy, indifference, dehumanization, crystallization, I don't care what terms you use to refer to the same thing, as long as you refer to it.

Yes and no. We all objectify at a first glance, so that would depend on what happens after that first evaluation. Humans are visual, visceral creatures - we take those visual qeues and make assumptions based on them.

I could just as easily, as an example, say that we generalize at first glance rather than objectify, and that the difference lies within a generalization not necessarily discrediting the other's value as a human being. I could then counter-argue my own point by saying generalization in fact discredits a human being as it diminishes them to their simplest parts, and then I could argue that diminishing one to their simplest parts itself fails to provide a cohesive view of the other to begin with and turn this into a discussion about Descartes' scientific method versus Capra's theory of systems.

To finish, I'd much prefer if this was not a discussion about what label is best used to describe what concept. Discuss the concept itself, not however you want to call it.

[samekh]

Lack of empathy has a definition, it's called indifference. And in fact a word I've used before. If we're to take the meaning of the words... Objectification is indifference towards the other, and indifference is lack of empathy. So is generalization, for that matter, which is what you've described in the first half of your message.

You say you wrote your post to cause impact, yet your end-goal is discussing semantics. I'd like the discussion to remain in the realm of anthropology, if at all possible, as is the purpose of this thread.

Objectification is not a new study. Marx called it reification (though the original german term translated directly into objectification), and was a critical part of why, in Marx's view, the proletariat suffered (Though it was Lukags, in his book on the matter, who greatly expanded upon the study).

Reification, objectification, generalization, lack of empathy, indifference, dehumanization, crystallization, I don't care what terms you use to refer to the same thing, as long as you refer to it.

I could just as easily, as an example, say that we generalize at first glance rather than objectify, and that the difference lies within a generalization not necessarily discrediting the other's value as a human being. I could then counter-argue my own point by saying generalization in fact discredits a human being as it diminishes them to their simplest parts, and then I could argue that diminishing one to their simplest parts itself fails to provide a cohesive view of the other to begin with and turn this into a discussion about Descartes' scientific method versus Capra's theory of systems.

To finish, I'd much prefer if this was not a discussion about what label is best used to describe what concept. Discuss the concept itself, not however you want to call it.

I tried to give you, in simple terms, a conceptual framework that explained my reasoning, and why different words mean different things, while commenting on the concept that you presented.

Seems that was too big a reply for you to read (from your comment).

It also seems to me that you could benefit from reading some nice psicology books, especially behavioural psicology ones, before touting words like objectification and now crystalization.

Your arguments aren't wrong per se, just seem biased. As most people now-a-days, because everyone goes to the same biased sources.

Oh well, who cares?

Them people love to sheeple.

[Sheep]

Them people love to sheeple.

What do you have against sheep huh?

[samekh]

What do you have against sheep huh?

Nothing. I love sheep. So cute and fluffy. And tasty too. Nom nom.

Heck, people can even behave like sheep, if they want. I don't care.

Peeps can do what they like as long they don't infringe in my life.

However I like to think of myself of a mouflon (let's see if you can get this reference, senpai~)

Edited April 18, 2015 by samekh

[Kurotsune]

I tried to give you, in simple terms, a conceptual framework that explained my reasoning, and why different words mean different things, while commenting on the concept that you presented.

Seems that was too big a reply for you to read (from your comment).

It also seems to me that you could benefit from reading some nice psicology books, especially behavioural psicology ones, before touting words like objectification and now crystalization.

Your arguments aren't wrong per se, just seem biased. As most people now-a-days, because everyone goes to the same biased sources.

Oh well, who cares?

Them people love to sheeple.

Considering pretty much every word of that is a personal attack rather than a rebuttal, I'll take it that you have no longer anything of interest to contribute to the conversation.

Therefore I ask you refrain from contributing further.

[samekh]

Considering pretty much every word of that is a personal attack rather than a rebuttal, I'll take it that you have no longer anything of interest to contribute to the conversation.

Therefore I ask you refrain from contributing further.

It wasn't actually a personal attack. And it was you that didn't read my rebbutal in the first place. And made thinly veiled insinuations of idiocy on my part (remember that Twain quote?)

But don't worry.

I won't contribuit further on this topic.

Since I won't waste my time further with people who are challenged in reading comprehension. (FYI - that was a personal attack)

Samekh out.

[Jelly]

no one asked you to respond to this thread. if you're just gonna be a bigot then dont respond at all.

[laggless01]

I guess this thread suffered a bit due to some errors through the communication.
Although I'm not really fond of the (slight) passive-aggressive tone of samekh, he has a point. The semantics are used to give different concepts different names, so there is no ambiguous definition to the words we use.

First of all, even as you read a post, you are objectifying. It is fundamental to the human brain, due it being quite important to spot if, for example, someone would potentially cause you harm. (It was vital for example in a time where there were no police, justice system, army etc., the Stone Age.)
Society nowadays has less use for it in the case of the example above, but that doesn't mean it isn't in the core of our behaviour.
Also, in rudimentary terms, it is quite handy when you search for a mate to have a (primary) filter to round down the amount of people to invest in for possible success (think: if you're a straight woman, would you really take the time to have a deep conversation with every guy you meet, no matter the looks, to see who would make a good husband? That would take ages...). Some criteria people use are dictated by society, some by biology, etc.
The thing is, objectifying someone doesn't mean you dehumanize them, which is what Kurotsone means, if I'm correct. The two aren't the same thing, and one can exist without the other occuring. I'm a straight guy, but when I look at a 'sexually loaded' cover of a magazine I'm not seeing the person on it as less af a human being, even though I might find it quite the attractive picture.
An example for dehumanizing without objectifying is, for example, some reactions of fans when a popstar is convicted for crimes. They blindly believe the person is innocent, just because he/she (I haven't seen many xe's) does so much good things, making him/her an idolized version of theirself, scrapped from (some) human traits. It's a bit stretched, but try to get the idea: Idolizing can be in some ways dehumanizing.

Dehumanizing can be used to commit the most atrocious of crimes by humans to each other, due to making them, well, not-human. That way, people won't feel empathy towards them, because empathy is an emotion towards other humans (and animals, particularly domestic, to some extent). It is, in that way, used to make the culprit indifferent to the emotions/suffering of the victim.

If you complain about beiong objectified, you're kind of a hypocrite, but at the other hand it's also understandable. You want to be taken for the person you are (unless you're a serial killer perhaps, but that's another story), which isn't as well reflected in looks alone, but can you do that for everyone you see?
Of course you don't. Your brain would explode to keep track of a small village, let alone millions, even billions of people. So, in itself, objectification can be a handy, maybe even necessary tool, if you like it or not
The problem arises in this when a society decides to put flawed laws into this 'filter', because it has a big influence on it. When you're taught that all asians are serial killers, you stay far away when you see one. Having a flawed filter doesn't make you innocent, though, but it gives a reason for why it happens.

As for empowerment...it's a difficult scale most of the time.
About sex: in porn, the human trafficing, forced intercourse etc. are normally hardly there, sometimes close to non-existent (I'm not including child porn in this, amongst others, for obvious reasons). In countries where prostitution is illegal, those problems are pretty much rampant, because people will do such things no matter if it's illegal or not, but due to being illegal, not only are the women that decide to do so more desperate, they also get pushed into the hands of criminals, who care a lot less about the consent of who they control most of the time. All you can do is regulate, so women can make an informed decision, and keep control over themselves, hereby empowering them.
When it comes down to objectification: since everyone does it, why aren't we also complaining about the objectification of men? We're not all ripped like we have several hours a day spare time to work at the gym...

Sorry for the long post, but as for that...build yourself a little bridge, and get over it.

P.S. Sorry to say, but as far as I know, there is no rape culture, at least not in western society. Rape is seen as one of the most vile crimes one can commit, so I, as a man, don't see a way to justify it. On that, doesn't anyone find the amount of reports of rapes commited on men strangely low? It's like society doesn't see men as capable of being raped as women...just a thought...

[fireheart4560]

Here's my 2 cents.

It's fictitious and over exaggerated. This also happens to men but in a different way. Not every man is heroic, not every man is buff and has bulk. Not every man is a courageous hero, or a crazed villain. Not every woman is how they are portrayed in fiction as well. That's exactly what it is, fiction.

In our society (not so much 3rd world countries unfortunately) women are take seriously in comparison to how they were treated back in the the days of "cover those ankles you whore." Which is why I don't get why there is a big deal about oppression in North America. We have laws that are against that stuff so the justice system heavily favours the woman when it comes to court.

Women abuse in an emotional way. Whether or not that is worse is up to you.

My point is, we should not change what is in fiction because of beliefs or values. It is pretend, not real, who cares.

Edited April 27, 2015 by fireheart4560

[Maelstrom]

Objectification is a manifestation of selfishness. Thought is free. It's only a problem when it manifests itself in behavior that affects other people.

By the logic posted above, when a guy masturbates to a girl he thinks is hot (or whoever), he's objectifying her because his thoughts about her are performed with or without her consent. So we're all going to hell. Cuz hey *smack on nose* that's always bad.

Why are you branding me with that politically hot word? QQ does this put some of samekh's words into context?

She becomes a thing I want but can't have so I fantasize about it. Is this the road to rape? Are video games objectifying people's lives so that we want to go out irl and kill people with headshots because it's fun? Clearly, it's not a road the common person takes. Even with this objectification as 'the stepping stone' to worse things, crossing that line is a very distinct thing that isn't accidental. It's a conscious effort to not care about the other so completely and do something that harmful to them like it doesn't matter. There are only so many sociopaths out there.

Anyways, anti-rape is kind of preaching to the choir here. Rape is a legitimate threat to men and women. But the way rape and objectification is usually talked about and thrown around, it's like we're all brain dead and completely unethical- we can't and won't follow a simple rule unless we're bludgeoned to death with it. Reminds me of the way the army treats its soldiers. Ever heard of safety briefs before every weekend?