I went and saw Body Worlds 2 with my family yesterday. (The website for the Denver Museum of Nature and Science exhibit appears to be down, or I’d link it…) For those not familiar with the show, it is basically an exhibition of human bodies preserved through a process called “plastination” which essentially replaces all the organic matter in the body with a plastic compound. It’s sort of akin to the process by which bones are fossilized. There are whole bodies placed in various poses, with the skin and certain organs or other tissue removed so that visitors can view different parts of the body from different angles and see how everything looks and works together. There are also cross-sections of different parts of the body and preserved organs in various states of health placed side-by-side for purposes of comparison. Every display has a short explanation to accompany it.

This show is intended to be educational and give the layperson a better idea of how the body works, to see the physical variation between individuals, and a way to visually compare real healthy and unhealthy tissues from various parts of the body. I think this is a good goal and probably necessary, if the disturbing amount of ignorance of basic human anatomy and biology on the part of the other people at the exhibit is any indication. I really encourage everyone to see a Body Worlds show if they have a chance and it comes through their area.

For the most part, I really liked it, but there were a couple of things that bothered me. I think the subject matter itself is inherently neutral; it was the presentation of some of the displays that was problematic.

First, the ratio of male:female bodies was unbalanced. The relative lack of female bodies really bothered me. I suppose there is probably a valid explanation for this; maybe more men choose to donate their bodies for plastination or more men engaged in high-risk activities that led to their deaths, or any number of other reasons that could account for the imbalance. It’s important to recognize that there may be a variety of factors influencing this, so I’m not saying I believe there is a malicious bias at work, though I do think it’s unfortunate.

The problem with displaying almost entirely male bodies is that it reinforces the social and medical notion of the male bodies as “normal” and “default”. It’s no secret that historically the medical establishment hasn’t really spent as much time or effort attempting to understand the female body. Sometimes this lack of understanding regarding diseases which primarily occur in one sex or the other results in a lack of competent medical treatment, or a dismissal of women’s health concerns as “in their heads” or “hysteria”.

The other thing about the apparently gendered nature of some of the displays is how male vs. female bodies were posed and depicted. Several of the bodies are shown engaging in athletic activity. The males? Jumping in the air to kick a soccer ball (or, uh, football for the rest of you), and getting ready to throw a javelin. Most of the female displays are fairly neutral, just standing around not doing anything in particular; the only solo female display depicting any sort of “athletic” activity is as a ballet dancer. There is also one display with a male-female pair figure skating. I found this to be a, perhaps unintentionally, somewhat sexist portrayal of male vs. female athletic ability. There was no need to depict the bodies in a way that conformed to traditional stereotypes of “men’s sports” vs. “women’s sports”. Discussing this with my dad, we both agreed that a more neutral and interesting way to display the bodies would have been in male-female pairs engaging in the same activities, so that viewers could compare differences (or a lack thereof) in size and structure between the two bodies. Whereas I don’t think the larger number of male bodies is probably due to anything other than coincidence, the decision to display the bodies in these poses was deliberate, and I found it pretty problematic and unnecessary.

The final criticism I have, and, I think, perhaps the worst of the bunch, is the utterly offensive display on “obesity”. There is one final, extremely small, display which contains cross-sections of two torsos: one from a 120 pound man and one from a 300 pound man, with organs and fat and everything perfectly preserved. The brief explanation of the display simply states that we can see how “obesity” causes an extra strain on the internal organs and shortens life by comparing the size and condition of the 300-lb man’s organs to the healthy man’s. No mention is given to additional factors which could cause similar health problems in a thinner person, and nothing more is mentioned about the fat man’s health except that he is fat, the assumption being that fatness in and of itself will kill you. This was a cheap shot, with no attempt at real insightful analysis, pandering to the popular scare-tactics of the “obesity epidemic” without actually discussing relevant health issues. This is strikingly useless and uninformative in a purportedly “educational” setting.

There were certainly plenty of good points to the exhibit: the section on embryonic development was especially interesting and, I think, puts a lot of the debate on “when life begins” in perspective. The first few examples of embryos are so small they’re hard to really see, and even the more developed ones more resemble a lizard or a cooked shrimp than a baby. There were also some fetuses from earlier than I would have thought possible which fully resembled human beings in every way. I think that part of the exhibit, especially, was an enlightening experience, especially in a time and place where accurate, completely unbiased information about fetal development can be difficult to find.

All in all, I thought it was a very interesting, and educational exhibit. As I said before, I think human anatomy is an essentially neutral subject in and of itself, but that it could have been presented in a way that didn’t enforce gender stereotypes or lazily avoid discussing actual facts where fat is concerned.

I find it bizarre that so many people apparently think that makeup (that is, specifically, the conscious decision not to wear it) is not a feminist issue.

Okay. I am not attacking anybody here. I do not care what you do with yourself, that is your business. You are allowed to dress and act however you like and I will not try to stop you. I may, however, question why you feel the need to conform to popular images of ideal beauty and ideal femininity, if in fact you do. I am not saying that you are doing anything wrong, per se, but I do believe the pressures which make you want to achieve the popular beauty ideal are wrong. Largely, I couldn’t really give a shit what you want to do with your body or how you rationalize it if you can extend to me the same courtesy.

But when [American, can't speak for anyone else] feminists insist that the standards of insecurity which are shoved down every woman’s throat every single day don’t exist, I get irritated. When feminists insist that there is no pressure forcing women to wear makeup, shave, wear skirts or high heels or bras, etc., I get pissed off. When feminists who do conform to what just happens to be fashionable take it as a personal affront that I insist on my right to not give in, I get angry.

Whenever the issue is brought up, some people will get defensive and feel the need to explain exactly why they do whatever the thing is which is the subject at hand. “I prefer the feel of smooth, hairless skin.” “I see wearing makeup as artistic expression.” (However, I do accept the fact that bras are comfortable for some people and uncomfortable for others so I’m not bringing that one in here.) Fine. Explain your reasons, but understand that in many cases, you are diverting the subject at hand, namely: that’s great if it works for you, but can’t you support those of us who can’t or don’t want to conform? After all, that was the whole point why we brought it up.

I don’t believe it is possible to freely choose to wear makeup, wear high heels, shave, etc., etc., in society as it stands today. I do not think this free choice exists. It would be great if it did and then everyone could express themselves visually however they cared to and no one would judge them as “filthy”, “disgusting”, “not taking care of herself” or a “dyke”. How wonderful that would be. But things aren’t that way.

Don’t you ever wonder WHY wearing makeup “makes you feel pretty”? WHY you “prefer the feel of smooth skin” or why not shaving makes you feel “grungy” or whatever else? WHY you feel “exposed” if you don’t wear certain undergarments if you really don’t have to for medical or comfort-related reasons? WHY short women “need” to wear heels for the extra height?

You probably won’t like the answers, but don’t worry, really: it’s not a reflection on you. Internalizing the standards pushed on you isn’t your fault and doesn’t make you a bad person, but you still ought to acknowledge the reasons why.

As an example, let’s go down my personal “beauty standard conformity checklist”. I don’t like makeup. Bras are uncomfortable. Heels kill my feet and I can’t walk in them. Two of the three here are strictly comfort-related issues, which makes it pretty easy for me to just say no.

But then…my dirty little secret: I have been known to shave. Not all the time because I have thick hair and sensitive skin so it takes forever and causes irritation or ingrown hairs. My skin would be healthier if I never did it. But I do anyway. It’s hell on my legs.

Why do I do it, then?

I could say it’s because I think skirts or swimsuits look bad with hairy legs. But why do I think that? Because I’ve internalized the message that it’s wrong and bad and I can’t seem to get over it even though I know that a) it’s bad for me personally because of my sensitive skin and b) if people can’t deal with it that’s their weird hangup that has nothing to do with me.

I acknowledge that this is an issue I have trouble with. I acknowledge that it’s hard to actually resist every aspect of the reigning standard. I don’t think it’s hypocritical to oppose something in theory, something little like wearing makeup or shaving, and then do it anyway because of the social pressure. I just think it sucks that anyone feels the need to do it at all if they’d rather not.

If there is a woman on this Earth who is truly free of all pressure to conform to her society’s standards, and she happens to choose to follow them anyway for reasons of personal expression and empowerment, good for her.

I don’t think she exists. I’m idealistic, yes, but not that idealistic.

These things are a feminist issue. I don’t think anyone is obligated to NOT conform if they happen to like looking/acting/being a certain way simply in order to make a statement of feminist solidarity, no. Of course not. That not solving the problem, it’s an opposite extreme. It’s imposing an anti-standard. That’s certainly not a solution and certainly not what I’m advocating. Do whatever makes you feel most comfortable, even if the reason for comfort is knowing you won’t be harassed or you’ll have it easier.

But until women actually are free from the pressure to dress and groom themselves a certain way, I’m not going to believe that most people simply “happen” to agree with the prevailing standard of their own entirely free will with no influence from the culture around them. To think that seems unspeakably naive.

So I found a link to Reluctant Lactivist via Alas today. Again this stupid thing about breasts and people’s stupid related hang-ups. But anyway, the story is basically thus:

On April 4th I sat down on a bench at the Gateway Fred Meyer to nurse my two-month-old son. It was about five o’clock on a busy Tuesday afternoon. The last place I wanted to be nursing was in that spot as it was noisy and distracting, but at the time, I couldn’t think of better place to attend to my baby’s needs. I also had my rather flighty three-year-old daughter with me, so wandering around the store to find a quieter spot would’ve left me instead chasing a toddler while carrying a bawling baby. Anyway, I’ve always made a point of nursing in public as part of my personal breastfeeding promotion campaign. So, I sat there, struggling to get my crying son to nurse while keeping an eye on my toddler in a busy store. Like many women living in a culture that has so thoroughly sexualized them, baring my breasts in public is not something I relish. At the same time, attending to my baby’s needs is more important to me that maintaining my modesty. So, I do my best to keep myself covered and assume that people will be polite enough not to stare. It’s not easy, though, to be discreet when nursing an upset two-month-old.

After nursing for five minutes or so, my son seemed comfortable enough for us to start shopping. As I reached into my bag to get my sling, Troy Hardig, Gateway Store Director, approached me. He had a weird look on his face and as I was trying to figure out why he was apporaching me when he opens with, “Oh, good. You’re getting a blanket.” He told me there had been complaints about my nursing, not that he minded, but that some people were offended. I was so stunned I couldn’t think of what to say, except to remind him that Oregon law protects a mother’s right to nurse in public. I felt absolutely humiliated. His comments left me feeling like I’d been doing something lewd. Unbelievably, when I spoke with Todd Heinle, Fred Meyers East Portland/SW Wash Operations Supervisor, a couple days later about the incident, he supported the store manager’s claim that I should have been more “discreet” and that three people had complained. I’m outraged that Fred Meyer’s corporate policy supports legitimizing the complaints of those offended by mothers who nurse in public, rather than the legally protected right of mothers who are trying to take care of their children. How can the offended sensibilities of even a dozen customers trump the legitimate needs of a baby?

I think she’s doing well for herself, getting the story out there on the news and all. Read more of her blog if you want to know more details. Good for her. I think this woman is totally awesome.

It’s the comments ignorant people are making about this that I want to talk about. People’s attitudes on breastfeeding pretty much enrage me. I’m not a mother but I want to be at some point and when I do have babies, of course I plan to breastfeed them (barring any unforeseen circumstances, since there are the occasional babies that won’t or can’t breastfeed).
Read the rest of this entry »

I don’t have a car. I hate driving and it’s probably safer for everyone on the road; I’m incapable of both getting the car to move in a straight line and also paying attention to a million different things going on at once around me. As a consequence, if any place I want to go is within a few miles, I’ll walk. I get rides from people or take the bus.

For some reason the past few years I’ve been victim to an explosion of random harassment on the street. No one ever used to bother me until about three years ago, when all of the sudden I was suddenly subject to unwanted attention by guys trying to intimidate me into going out with them, or men shouting at me or honking on the street. I’m not a person who deals well with this. I freeze up. I want to crawl into a hole in the sidewalk somewhere and just die. It’s the most I can do to simply ignore it and not give them the satisfaction of a response; forget confronting anyone, yelling “fuck you” or flipping them off — I wish to God I could. My reflexes aren’t that fast and it upsets me too much to immediately react. And maybe I’m a little afraid to. I think my attitude is enough to keep people from confronting me, generally (apparently I scare and intimidate people), but apart from that, I’m a very small person. I feel tiny, and I’m very aware, sometimes, how vulnerable that makes me.

Anyway, I hadn’t had any problems since August or September, so I suppose I assumed that it had somehow stopped. But I think the assholes were just waiting until spring to emerge.

In the past few weeks, I’ve been honked at many times and even had one idiot stop in the middle of the street (residential neighborhood, so not a lot of traffic) and slooowly cruise by, making sounds which I honestly thought at first were a pigeon or something. (I swear this is true. Sexy, huh? He sure thought so. Dumbass.) He finally drove away when I refused to acknowledge him at all and people behind him got pissed off and started honking. But none of this has ever really bothered me. Sure, I didn’t like it, but I can forget it and keep going about my day.

Today, while walking to work, I had some guys zoom by and scream at me. Some unintelligible but almost certainly obscene statement that ended with the word “bitch”. (At first it really bothered me that I couldn’t make out what they’d said. But I’m pretty sure I’m better off not knowing.) I have no idea what I did to deserve being called names. Maybe they’d tried to get my attention and I didn’t notice. Or maybe they were just pathetic scum with nothing better to do with their day than assault random people. Scratch that — women. People don’t do this to men. And that is an act of violence. It is a violation. To not feel safe in your own neighborhood, half a block away from, of all things, an elementary school, with kindergartners running around and everything.

That did upset me. I got to work and wanted to cry. It took me most of the day to even begin to forget about it. Being called a bitch on the street ruined my day.
Tell me that’s a compliment. Just try to tell me I should appreciate that they found me an attractive target for their aggression. I fucking dare you.

It’s not any different at all from when men cat-call or whistle or say other things which may not involve such rude language or names. It’s the same sentiment, it’s just that these guys didn’t feel the need to hide their utter contempt for women. It’s not a compliment. It’s not about being found attractive. It’s about men asserting their power over women — and except on the most superficial level, it’s not even sexual. It’s violent. It’s unbridled hate for simply being born what I am. An object to be despised except when I can be used.

This reminded me of an old post by Echidne on misogynists and how feminism brings them out of the woodwork. Basically this post argues that misogynists are less common than we think, it’s simply that outspoken feminist bloggers attract more trolls and give us an inflated sense of how many men really, truly hate us.

And while I think it’s a good post, and it has a point, I think it’s absolutely not true. I think misogynists are pretty fucking common. I think more men totally despise women more than we ever want to admit. Because I’m not doing anything to attract unwarranted attention when I walk on the street. I’m not spouting my politics, I’m not dressing or acting in any way which could reveal that I am a feminist or the uppity broad I am. If anything, I look average, I look feminine, and I’m the farthest thing in most people’s mind from a queer feminist stereotype. And yet I encounter this shit just as much, sometimes more, in daily life, in apolitical contexts, than I do online.

Misogyny is totally ubiquitous. It’s all-pervading. It’s everywhere, all the time, and I, at least, am being constantly bombarded with it. What makes this worse is that this behavior is perceived as normal. I don’t know what other conclusion I’m supposed to come to except that the majority of men hate women, otherwise, this wouldn’t happen constantly, and it certainly wouldn’t be seen as okay.

Yeah, I know, it could be worse. This place is better than some.

But it’s still bad.

Or, you know, you can. If you’re a masochist. As I apparently am.

First, via Daily Dose of Queer, a young man who is surprisingly insecure about other people’s gender identity. Apparently, allowing people to check “male”, “female” or write in an “other” as their gender on a college application is the end of the world. Or, at the very least, marks the other as “psychotic”. But what I really love about this editorial is that parts of it are right on the mark. The author knows what he’s talking about. It’s pretty entertaining when it’s not so stupid it’s infuriating.

For example:

There are, to be sure, rare individuals who are born intersexed (possessing attributes of both sexes), but in the Western world corrective surgery assigns a distinct sex soon after birth. [Note: Yeah, and I consider that “corrective surgery” to be mutilation, but that’s neither here nor there.] …

The push for recognizing “gender variance” has little to do with genuine biological aberrance. Its goal is not to treat those burdened with physical forms that are imperfectly realized more charitably, but to abolish sex by destroying the normative standard.

Well, speaking for myself? Yes. And? I’ve run across so many articles which talk about the feminist agenda of demolishing gender roles, establishing gender and sex as a continuum, etc, etc, and, without fail, these articles simply cite that as if it’s some self-evident flaw in feminist reasoning. They have never explained to me exactly why this is a bad thing. I assume this is because there’s no argument against the idea other than stubborn adherence to principle.

But I can explain why seeing gender, and even physical sex, as a false duality, as a continuum, is a good thing. With gender, recognizing however people define themselves is only polite and respectful. With physical sex, the differences are not as clearly-cut as most people would like to believe. Why construct these broad categories which often don’t apply? Obviously, there is benefit to constructing categories which fit most people, but the problem is that usually this ends up forcing everyone else into one or the other, which is marginalizing and often physically or psychologically damaging. This is a problem in the case of, say, the discrimination that transgendered and non-gender-normative folks face. This is a problem when intersex children are mutilated before they’re old enough to understand their own gender identity and express it, in operations which often compromise future reproductive or sexual function, which often lead to trauma when a child who identifies as one gender is raised as the other and/or that child learns what was done to them. (Though “trauma” seems an inadequate word if one means crippling depression and eventual suicide.)

But wait! It gets better:

If I approached the director of the student government’s Queer Affairs Task Force and I claimed to be an eggplant trapped in a man’s body, she would smile, nod politely (she is a nice person), and then call for friendly people in white coats to haul me off to a padded cell. But if I claimed to be a woman trapped in a man’s body, she would force others to act as if my view were correct. In short, psychosis is considered quite alright, provided it obliterates sexual norms, traditions, and taboos.

Do I even have to say anything about this quote? Really? Yeah, I think it speaks for itself. This isn’t even good or logical writing.

And, of course, the obligatory strawfeminist:

Believing in the modern liberal view of sex must require at least an hour of practice each day. How else can they believe, for example, that masculinity and femininity are social constructs with no relation to the biological differences between the sexes, while also holding that homosexuality is inherent? Or that gender is unimportant, except when someone insists that he or she is stuck in a body of the wrong gender?

The problem here, I think, is that someone a) doesn’t understand the terminology being used and b) doesn’t care. Masculinity and femininity are gender roles. Anyone can act in a way society deems “masculine” or “feminine” regardless of being male or female, man or woman, intersex or genderqueer. Gender is an internal identity, a state of mind. Sex is an inherent physical characteristic which can be medically altered to a certain extent. These are not interchangeable. That is how I can believe all these things at once; because they are not synonymous. And believing that gender should be unimportant so far as social or legal issues go, that everyone should be treated equally, is not opposed to the idea that people’s right to self-define is important.

The rest of the editorial kind of veers off into a bunch of pseudo-philosophical crap that I admit I got bored and stopped really reading closely. (I skimmed!) But apparently “Our culture has become so oversexed that it is abolishing sex.” I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, since it’s confusing the two totally different definitions of the word sex: namely, that which is related to reproduction and all its happy perks, and…innate physical characteristics that don’t necessarily have anything to do with definition number one. As I said before: logic? Decent writing skills? Anywhere to be found?

And then there’s this awful thing someone linked to in the feminist LJ community. I can’t even begin to articulate how much this article pisses me off. Whatever one thinks about Ariel Levy (Personally? I think she has some good points to make, but I don’t think she’s a very good writer from articles I’ve read. I haven’t read the book, just excerpts and articles she’s written about the book which make me disinclined to read it. I expect I’ll get around to it sometime.), I hope we can all agree that whoever wrote this thing is living in a different universe. Observe:

We’re not trying to be empowered. The twentysomething women I know don’t care about old-style feminism. Partly this is because they already see themselves as equal to men: they can work, they can vote, they can bonk on the first date.

Putting aside the myth that women have never been allowed to work outside the home (as women of color and poor women and just about any woman who wasn’t rich and well-off have always been forced to work rather than having the luxury of staying home with the kids); men and women are hardly on an equal playing field. Things are better in many ways, but it’s not equal. This remains true of all civil rights struggles. And sure, women can bonk on the first date, it just means everyone will call her a “slut”. Being called degrading names! Empowering!

Oh, but it GETS BETTER. By which I mean, much, much worse:

Another reason for the rise of raunch is that women are rediscovering the joy of being loved for their bodies, not just their minds. … Instead of desperately longing for the right to be seen as human beings, today’s girls are playing with the old-fashioned notion of being seen as sex objects.

I defy anyone to seriously argue that women are now valued for their minds at the expense of their physical characteristics. Or that women’s minds are valued. Or that women are valued. I don’t know about you, but this twentysomething girl is still at that desperately-longing-to-be-seen-as-a-human-being stage.

And you can read the rest if you really want, because there are so many gems in there I didn’t want to bother quoting. I’ll just close with this explanation on why sexual harassment in the workplace is the greatest thing ever:

If a thong makes you feel fabulous, wear it. For one thing, men in the office waste whole afternoons staring at your bottom, placing bets on whether you’re wearing underwear. Let them. Use that time to take over the company.

I would, personally, prefer if no one except possibly a sexual partner spent any time thinking about my undergarments. If they can’t help themselves, there’s no need to speak about this thought aloud. I can’t be the only one who finds this quote extremely nasty.

People who ask this question obviously don’t understand what is meant by the term “sexual objectification”. No, I don’t want to be objectified, not ever. Not by random people on the street, not by an intimate partner.

“Why?”

By definition, what is an object? An object is something inert to be manipulated by others. An object exists only for the purposes it was made and can only passively fulfil that purpose through its use by an active party. A grammatical object is the part of a sentence which indicates what is being manipulated by the subject; linguistically, an object has things done to it but does nothing on its own.

In more concrete terms, what are objects? Objects are items that exist outside of ourselves which we put to specific uses. A banana is an object. It’s a plant which has been domesticated so that its only purpose is to be consumed by human beings. The plant can no longer reproduce without human intervention, so its natural biological purpose has been subverted and it no longer has a real function outside of the uses humans design for it. When we plant grass in our yards to look nice, this is an object. The only real purpose of grass is to grow and spread, but we add cultural baggage, assumptions about class and aesthetics which we attach not only to our lawns but to their color and health, their maintanance, their growth. A car is an object; it is for transportation. A stove is an object; it is for cooking. Food is an object; it is to be cooked, it is to be eaten. A baseball is an object; it is to be thrown within the specific context of certain games.

Objects are things.

A woman is not an object.

Let me ammend that: people are not objects.

Women do not exist solely to be sexually manipulated, used, abused. When a woman is objectified she is made into a passive thing — she is not an individual with thoughts and ideas, with ambitions and goals and principles. She is simply something to be used for the pleasure of the one who objectifies her. And do things have feelings? Does anyone care what an object thinks or wants? In a very real way, objectification is dehumanization. Dehumanizing a subject, making them into an object, allows for their feelings and thoughts to be completely disregarded. Does consent matter when dealing with a thing rather than a person? Does anything matter but the pleasure and whims of the user, the abuser?

Other people are made into objects, too. It’s not just women who are made into objects in order to fulfil the fantasties of others; parents make their children into objects, too, assuming that the child’s only purpose is to live up to their expectations, to do as the parents would like the child to do. Politicians and advertizers make people into objects: we are a passive audience for them to manipulate, to do what they want us to do for their benefit and not for our own — we are a means to an end and we are not human when we do this. We are objects to be used and manipulated and then discarded when our usefulness is through.

So not all objectification is sexual. None of it is good, beneficial, or in any way desirable. I am a person, not an object. I take particular exception, however, to being made into a sexual object. My sexuality — the firing of neurons in my brain, the combination of feelings and sensations moving along my nerves, my body, my breasts, my vulva — does not exist for the pleasure of anyone but me. This is not to say that I’m selfish, that I would take pleasure from another while denying them pleasure from my body, my sex — it is to say that if I find it pleasurable to give pleasure to a particular person, that is my business. It is nothing that can be taken without my express will, my explicit consent. My body does not exist specifically for the visual or physical stimulation of others, especially those to whom I do not give permission to use me in this way.

“Don’t we all like to be objectified sometimes?”

No. I don’t. I don’t enjoy being made into a passive object to be manipulated. I don’t enjoy being made into something less-than-human. I don’t enjoy being ignored and overlooked as the individual that I am and instead made into something else against my own will.

Do I enjoy being found attractive? Yes, of course. Everyone does. But too often these two phenomona are conflated and confused. Being objectified, being verbally or sexually abused, is often said to merely be the same thing as attraction. It’s a compliment, it’s an honor to be harrassed on the street. Being a desireable object is confused with being a desireable human being. Being made into a thing to be used, which exists solely for the purpose of this use and is judged only on its usefulness, is not the same as being found attractive at all.

When a person finds another person attractive, that other person is still human. They are an active participant in all interactions. No one can have a relationship with an object; relationships are a dynamic, mutual process on the part of all involved. Relationships are an active process. In the dynamic of objectification, only one party retains active personal agency.

There is something to be said for the desire to submit, the desire to be passive, in a sexual or romantic dynamic. Some people feel more comfortable in dominant or submissive relationship roles. But this is still an active, consensual decision, and that is the distinction. In my relationships with my family, I enjoy caring for and taking care of others, I enjoy cooking and don’t mind cleaning because it makes everyone’s life more livable. If a young sibling is ill I will nelgect my own desires, my own plans for the day, in order to ensure that they are comfortable and all right. I would be absolutely the same if I were in a romantic relationship, because this is my personality and it is what gives me pleasure. I do not do this simply because it’s expected of me (it’s not), but because it is the role I am most comfortable expressing. This submission to the needs and desires of other people is an expression of love. If this submission is forced, rather than an active expression of the person in question’s authentic personality and desires, as it often is, that relationship is abusive.

A real relationship allows for everyone involved to act however they like, to fill whatever role they like. Objectification does not. Objectification forces a role and a purpose onto the object which, even on theoretical occasion that this role and purpose might conicide with how that particular person expresses themselves, still limits that person’s ability to be anything outside of that narrow set of expectations. It is still wrong, and it is always wrong.

I posit that no, nobody ever really likes to be objectified. When people ask that question, or when people say that they like a little objectification now and then, I think it’s clear what they actually mean is that they enjoy being found attractive, they enjoy attention. These are perfectly valid wants and desires. But I am not willing to accept that anyone on Earth actually wants, of their own free will, to lose any and all freedom to define themselves or to have any real agency in their own lives. Powerlessness as a fantasy or a kink is not the same as actual powerlessness, as actual slavery and bondage. No one who actually cares about the subject would think to conflate the two while describing submission in those terms, and the fact is that being made into an object is very real powerlessness, is very real bondage to another person’s desires at the expense of one’s own.

Objectification is a forced loss of self.

No one has any right to ever, under any circumstances, inflict this on another person.

I was surfing the internet today and came across a statement to the effect of: “a woman wearing clothes that show cleavage or going without a bra is guaranteed to get male attention”. This was put forth as an advantage, a good thing, something to be desired. Context is not important here, because the fact of the matter is that I see this sexualized attitude towards breasts and bras all the time, and I can’t stand it.

Finding a woman’s breasts attractive is not, in and of itself, inherently a bad thing. It’s an aesthetic disposition that I happen to share. In general, they’ve got a pleasing shape, they’re kind of fun to manipulate, and they tend to be attached to people that I like. Thinking any particular body part is sexy isn’t really the issue here.

The issue is that I cannot choose to wear or not wear certain tops or undergarments, in order to be physically comfortable, without my choice somehow making other people feel entitled to comment, criticize, or stare. The idea is that by wearing clothes which partially reveal my breasts, or by choosing not to wear a bra even beneath “conservative” attire, or even by simply, by virtue of nature, having large mammaries (or, indeed, breasts at all), I have no right to complain if others make degrading or unwanted sexual advances. Somehow, by the mere virtue of being a female who happens to have a couple interestingly-shaped lumps of fat on my chest, I’ve given up all right to be treated with respect or dignity.

There’s really nothing one can do to avoid it. Even if I do all the “right” things, wearing horrible contraptions under my clothes that make me uncomfortable, totally covering anything that could be construed as suggestive or “inappropriate”, constantly hunching over to draw less attention to my chest (the real burden of having breasts — not the weight on your back, not the strain on your shoulders), because they are large, and noticeable, people will still sexualize them and feel entitled to harass me based on their very existence.

On the subject of cleavage? Dude, they’re big. A shirt which shows nothing on a smaller girl still ends up showing cleavage on someone with larger breasts. Unless I cover myself almost up to the neck, there’s going to be a little bit. I don’t have to wear anything with an excessively low neckline in order to achieve the effect; and I’m certainly not going to wear uncomfortably hot clothes in the summer, in 80 degree weather, or even, really, if I just don’t feel like wearing something that covers my entire body. I’m not going to try to hide them and pretend they’re not there and I’m not going to be ashamed that they exist.

On the subject of bras? I think they’re a joke. I find them uncomfortable and unbearable. I haven’t worn one in about three years. Whatever one finds most comfortable, I think, is really key. I have a hard time understanding why anyone would voluntarily wear one, but I don’t understand the appeal of smearing colorful goop one’s face or wearing shoes that are impossible to walk in that cause back pain, either. I kind of like having smooth skin but shaving’s not high on my list of priorities on account of the fact that it takes a lot of time and effort and I get ingrown hairs easily. This is my preference. I don’t really care what other people want to do to themselves. What I do care about is the social expectation, the cultural norm. The idea that I have to do these things which make me uncomfortable and cause me pain, otherwise I am “not taking care of myself” or I’m “asking” for unwanted attention — and that either way, whether I really live up to the standard or not, either way it is still an excuse that my actions make me deserving of harassment and mistreatment.

I think the real problem here is the sexualization of women’s breasts. As I said earlier, I don’t see anything really wrong with finding them sexy, but this is more of an incidental, decentralized kind of attraction, kind of like, “he has nice eyes” or “I think she has sexy elbows” or…whatever. What I mean by the term “sexualization” is the idea that breasts are inherently sexual objects (and therefore at once indecent and also the focus of sexual attention) when, really, breasts are not any more sexual than any other feature of the body. Breasts serve a very specific biological purpose: to feed babies.

Breasts do not exist to be stared at, and their very presence on a person’s body does not suddenly mean that their owner abdicates all right to respect or dignity. The fact that I have breasts is not an invitation for clearly unwanted sexual attention (mostly from straight men) or for verbal abuse (more or less from anyone). There are many issues at work here: the sense of entitlement to women’s bodies, especially on the part of many heterosexual men, but also in general; cultural conformity; the idea that women exist for the sexual pleasure and objectification of men, coupled with the idea that anything sexual is evil and bad. But I don’t have the time and energy to deconstruct all that just now. I’m too tired from even thinking about the vastness of it all.

This attitude about breasts is not really the problem. It’s a symptom of so much else that’s wrong with the world. But, in and of itself, it’s awful enough. In order to avoid this sort of attention, I should not have to try to cover all traces of their shape, their function. Is an organ developed to nurture children really indecent or obscene? What does that say about the priorities of my culture?

For now, some interesting links to pursue:

007b is a site with some good content, but probably NSFW (not that it really should be; it’s just pictures of breastfeeding mothers and the like). Among the highlights are a page on why women wear bras and whether or not there’s really any reason to aside from social pressure, and a gallery of pictures of normal, average breasts showing the variety of shapes and sizes they come in, to try to give the viewer a bit of a sense of perspective.

And then a link I remembered seeing linked at Alas a bit ago, which I think speaks for itself.

Finally, an old fem_rage post which perhaps describes my feelings about the matter more accurately but less articulately and with a lot more cursing.

NEWSFLASH, world!

I do not care if you find me physically attractive or not.

Mind you, I know that many of you do. I think I’m hot, too. I’m not trying to sound conceited although there will always be someone who misinterprets this post this way. But I am truly, for the most part, happy about what I look like. I don’t see anything not to love, and the stuff I don’t quite accept unconditionally yet I’m working on. This is not something that has come easily to me, liking myself; it doesn’t come easily to any woman who’s been exposed to this world. It doesn’t matter where you are, even in the most primitive and isolated part of the globe; if you have magazines or television you’ve been bombarded with the message of the unobtainable ideal.

But fuck you all if you think that I somehow need your approval in order to allow myself this. Don’t think that by gracing me with your assessment of me I will be so overcome with gratitude that I will drop to my knees and blow you. Chances are, you’re probably staring at me and totally creeping me out. Not a good way to get me to like you back.

But if you think I’m intellectually sexy, I’ll take that as the highest compliment available.

… who just don’t understand why women could possibly be impatient or annoyed with them.

Dear Straight Guys,

I respectfully submit that perhaps, if you really want to be seen as an understanding or sensitive individual, that you need to start treating women as people. This goes clear down to your core: it’s not enough to pretend you understand this, it’s not enough to think that, so long as your sexism is benign and not overt and is carefully disguised as either concern or misguided admiration, that we will somehow ignore or appreciate the specialized sort of attention that you give. You need to change the way you think, the very way that you perceive your world.

1. So, first of all, it doesn’t all revolve around you. If I am discussing sexism or the unique difficulties women face, I can understand and appreciate the frustrations that men also grapple with in our society. Really, the problem isn’t so much men and women as the fact that all powerful institutions want to make everyone feel worthless, so that we will do whatever they tell us to. But, for now, I am talking about women and women’s unique position in the world, and it is not about the big picture. It is about us. About me. Your tangents derail the conversation and shift the focus so that the issues I want to raise are ignored. This is the problem.

This is symptomatic of a greater issue: the fact that men are trained to keep the focus on themselves. It’s not the conscious insecurity of the male ego which causes this to happen, but rather, the result in living in a culture which focuses on men the majority of the time. When attempting to give women equal time, and an equal voice, the fifty-fifty split (or, since this doesn’t exist yet in reality, even the attempt to approach it) seems unbalanced and skewed to the minds of many men. Women trying to have an equal voice seem to be silencing the men, simply because the men are not the ones currently talking about the current topic.

Resist the urge to assert yourself in defense of the male voice. We’ve already heard it, and doubtless we will hear it again. Save it until we’re finished. Do it somewhere else.

2. Second of all, it doesn’t all revolve around you. Whether or not you find someone attractive, whether or not anybody else might possibly find someone attractive, whether a woman is pretty or not: it’s not relevant to feminist discussion. EVER. We should not be valued based on our attractiveness to men. We should not be considered only in this context. When I am talking about women who behave in a traditionally unladylike manner, or who are unconventionally attractive, or are in any way otherwise outside the gender norm, their saving grace is not that they still happen to make your particular penis happy. So you like her. Big fucking deal. It’s not about what you like. Women will be who they are regardless if you, you in particular, happen to approve of them or not.

It’s rude and condescending to act this way. This, again, detracts from the focus of the discussion. This devalues women as unique individuals with opinions and ideas and lives. Our worth should never be dependent on other people’s opinions in this way, and least of all in feminist discussion, of all places.

So stop it, already.

3. We are all human beings. We are all similar lumps of fleshy matter that moves and grunts and goes around its daily business. Until you can look at any random woman on the street and see the human being before you start placing significance on the gender presentation, until being human, of any variety, any color, any sexual orientation, any genitalia, any anything, is the nebulous vague default in your mind, you still need to try harder. If you automatically assume a person of unspecified gender or sex is “he”, or white, able-bodied, and heterosexual, that is your problem. And this is why so many of us have no time or patience to try to explain things to you.

4. Speaking of which, I am not required to explain myself. I don’t need to justify myself to anyone but myself, and I sleep well enough at night, thank you. If you don’t understand a concept, certainly, ask. If the answer upsets you, makes you defensive, or confuses you, don’t insist on continuing the conversation. Actually THINK about the answer, and what it was that upset or confused you, and after you have carefully considered what we say, and actually listened, then we can talk some more. But you are not necessarily entitled to have everything placed in a pretty little box for you.

5. I hate that I even have to disclaim that, sure, okay, “not all men are actually like this”. I’m sure in some hypothetical world my sweeping generalizations are grossly inaccurate. But, realistically? In the world I live in and with the men that I know and love and interact with on a daily basis?

You pretty much all do this shit at least some of the time.

If you are one of the handful of men I have met who actually treat women like people, though, this disclaimer won’t mean anything to you. If you aren’t guilty of the offenses I’ve outlined, you aren’t defensive about it. You’re one of those guys who reads the whole list and nods along and then genuinely apologizes for your gender (while not feeling the need to defend yourself by insisting you do not represent these men). You don’t need the disclaimer because my stinging man-hating feminist barbs don’t really hurt.

The rest of you, though, might have a few things to think about.