The future is X rated.

Much Music now has a show called
"Who to Do...The 20 Sexiest Women in Hollywood."
Although i have only seen a preview, i think i can figure out what this show will entail, and I'm not interested. In fact, I'm upset that a show like this even exists. (and I'm certain it's counterpart is "The 20 Sexiest Men in Hollywood.")
Here's my problem:
Most of the women i know are looking to be respected and loved by men, not to be objectified. Many of the women i see however, mainly in the venue of mass media, show very little respect for themselves in the process of looking for this respect.
(based on insecurity, pressure, etc.)
There seems to be a significant (im)moral message that is being poured into our culture that women and sexuality are synonymous.
And that this is okay.
And that it is legitimate to objectify women this way.

The truth is: it seems as though we are becoming used to looking at the human body for the sake of consumption -
whether male or female -
instead of looking at the human body as beautiful, capable, and intelligently designed.

I'm not blaming this on either men or women, whether it be the case that women are the ones who put themselves in the position to be objectified, and men are the ones doing the objectifying, however... objectification cannot be ignored:

"While objectification calls for men to become observers, it also calls for women to become the observed. Women become objects as men become objectifiers." Women are expected to accept the role of stimulators of men’s visual interest. This visual interest focuses on a two dimensional view of women, one that values the physical characteristics of women while ignoring personal character or any of the inner complexities that are inherent in human beings."

So when a man claims to love a woman, is he talking about love for a two dimentional view of women and the women who pursue this ideal? Or are they speaking of women as they really are?


Blogger the tapered pant said...

this is what I've been thinking lately. (And I feel like I'm going to take some heat for it.)
Where are the rallies of feminism in high schools? In Junior High Schools? in grade 4 classrooms? I understand the logistics ane yes neccessity of holding feminist rallies at udub and the like, but doesn't it seem like most people showing up have already gotten the idea? Doesn't it seem like we're being a little repetitive? Doesn't it seem like high school girls these days are running a higher risk of allowing themselves to be objectified than university students? or something like that. we can discuss it sometime. if you're nicer to me.
...who said that?

March 24, 2006 11:20 p.m.  
Blogger rintrah said...

Here is something I have been mulling over lately.

I think more sex and objectification on TV is a good thing.

I loathe violance and would like to see it gone. Especially on TV. And especially in real life.

As such, if violance was more resticted on TV with sex and nudity being more prevelant then parents would monitor their electronic babysitter better.

This is what I call the "I'm in yer face, whatcha gonna do about it?" plan. Not foolproof, but it would require people to be more diligent and would keep them from becoming complacent and expecting someone else to monitor what they or their kids are doing/viewing.

March 25, 2006 12:23 a.m.  
Blogger hoardingsanity said...

i'd say the materialism, objectification and violence are all one of the same thing, in that they all lead to one another.

im with bonnie. these issues need to be discussed much earlier. the problem is that we grant people very little in terms of education. even in this nation, where our public schools are free, and we're supposed to be entirely autonomous, everyone would rather watch jenny jones than be concerned with the objectification of women by the state.

i think it's all gotta start with edumacation.

more later ms. solgaard.

March 25, 2006 5:53 a.m.  
Blogger Sweet Caroline said...

damn straight. women are being objectified, yet we allow it. have you ever noticed that petty rivalry between females is pretty much over who is prettier, who gets hit on more, etc? and besides all that, not like we don't know this, but it's RIDICULOUS how we allow the media to dictate to us what is beautiful. we actually BELIEVE that the women it depicts are so beautiful and ideal, when in reality, they're humans that get pimples and poop, and are probably putting themselves through hell to look the way they do.

i say we bring the whole notion of transparency into our own microcosmic worlds. let people see us for who we are, and not give into the notion that we are commodities. not compare ourselves to each other, not get caught up in unnecessary rivalry. it's all bullshit. we're meant for far more than sitting pretty and striving to meet unnecessary ideals.

March 25, 2006 4:07 p.m.  
Blogger meadstars said...

i just want to know why lindsay lohan is only #10, she is in my top five for shiz.

March 25, 2006 6:32 p.m.  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home