Presently, I am reading a textbook for a male gender studies class (not that I’m taking the class…I picked the book up in undergrad because it looked interesting). Aside from my general concern that the book seems to have been written more from a perspective of women’s studies talking about men rather than a more neutral gender studies, the most recent chapter, which talked about “girl watching” as a subset of sexual harassment issues in the workplace, drew my interest because I think it put the whole nature of the objectification arguments into perspective.
To paraphrase H.L. Menken’s definition of fundamentalism, feminists who talk a lot about objectification have a terrible, pervasive fear that some guy, somewhere, is sexually attracted to a woman. Basically in the chapter it talks about the sexual harassment of longing looks (and more legitimately, male banter about how women look). The problem, it suggests, is that men do not think about how it makes a woman feel, thus treating her as an object rather than a subject.
But let’s take this to one extreme. A guy, alone in his home, fantasizes about having sex with a woman. A woman who would not consent to have sex with him. A woman who would potentially be emotionally distraught and feel the need to alter her behaviors if she knew what he was thinking. From this objectification analysis, his behavior is irresponsible, harassing, and perhaps borders on rape.
But this is obviously (I think) an untenable position to hold. Perhaps a more reasonable standard is a reasonable expectation not to be caught. This means that catcalls are certainly improper and that coordinated girl-watching activity amongst a group of men is on the borderline (though even considering a woman’s perspective, I’m not sure of the harm of a man basically saying “wow, she is really beautiful”). Silent, individual observation and the thoughts that follow are then acceptable.
I think the ultimate failing of the objectification theory is it seems to work from the assumption that men can only hold one thought in their head, and that if they are thinking about a woman’s physical form, they must naturally be abandoning any consideration of the rest of her person (intellectual, emotional, etc). I think it is an absurd simplification to think that there is a zero-sum evaluation between aesthetic beauty and other values; the easiest proof of which is the ability for intelligence or other factors to be sexy. I was recently observing that pretty much all the female musicians I listen to are really attractive. The negative explanation is that unattractive women simply cannot make it in the business. The other less ideal interpretation is my evaluation of the music is biased by my attraction. But I think it is entirely reasonable that the fact that they make captivating music enhances their appeal. And isn’t it finding attraction for complex reasons extending beyond the superficial the ultimate antithesis of objectification?
No comments:
Post a Comment