Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Sexual Interactions And Values

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

It also doesn't make sense that we park in a driveway, yet we drive on a parkway. There are plenty of strange definitions in the English language, but I'm not about to try to redefine them all so that they make perfect sense. When I use the word "objectify," I use it in the sense that I just described.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But you're not using the word "objectify" as most people would use it.

Well, I was not using the word, I was talking about how feminists use it (who, I believe, are and always have been its most frequent users, if not originators).

I've said it before and I'll say it again. One of the issues I have that prevents me from calling myself an Objectivist is that the Objectivist definitions of commonly used words seem to be somewhat esoteric.

All of Objectivism is what currently counts as esoteric. Objectivists seek to find the right definitions and the right principles, and since the dominant philosophies have gotten so much wrong, Objectivism will differ from them in many ways. It's a bit like the relationship between America and "world opinion." There are fewer of us, but the truth is on our side, so why care about what the rest of the world thinks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also doesn't make sense that we park in a driveway, yet we drive on a parkway. There are plenty of strange definitions in the English language, but I'm not about to try to redefine them all so that they make perfect sense. When I use the word "objectify," I use it in the sense that I just described.

Your error is not linguistic, but philosophical. Instead of going by what people mean by something, listen to what they actually do mean when they say it, and what premises are hiding behind it. You'll find that there is a bare definition present - one which an objective person agrees with (e.g. Selfishness = Concern with one's own interests, Objectify = Regarding something as an object) - but on top of that there will be an implicit evaluation or dubious premise that should not be in the definition at all. Your sense of the word "objectify" carries within it a premise that you aren't letting go of. Maybe you should take that premise as the issue at hand instead of contesting the definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your error is not linguistic, but philosophical. Instead of going by what people mean by something, listen to what they actually do mean when they say it, and what premises are hiding behind it. You'll find that there is a bare definition present - one which an objective person agrees with (e.g. Selfishness = Concern with one's own interests, Objectify = Regarding something as an object) - but on top of that there will be an implicit evaluation or dubious premise that should not be in the definition at all. Your sense of the word "objectify" carries within it a premise that you aren't letting go of. Maybe you should take that premise as the issue at hand instead of contesting the definition.

Another observation I've just came to is noticing that there is a parallel between thinking that "objectifying" requires that you regard consciousness as non-objective, and people who think that communism "works in theory" and is an objective, logical concept, with capitalism on the other side being a passionate, reasonless, faith-driven concept. Its the people who think that to be objective means to be cold, inhuman, to sacrifice others to self, to regard humans as ants serving the queen ant of society. It's the same premise that causes both viewpoints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another observation I've just came to is noticing that there is a parallel between thinking that "objectifying" requires that you regard consciousness as non-objective, and people who think that communism "works in theory" and is an objective, logical concept, with capitalism on the other side being a passionate, reasonless, faith-driven concept. Its the people who think that to be objective means to be cold, inhuman, to sacrifice others to self, to regard humans as ants serving the queen ant of society. It's the same premise that causes both viewpoints.

An excellent observation! I've never recognized that connection before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you everyone for responding! (whether I agree with your viewpoints or not)

to JMeganSnow: You Rock! I know exactly what you were talking about!

oh dear i have been interrupted and i will have to post when i have more time

Thanks everyone!

-aurora-

p.s. "Another observation I've just came to is noticing that there is a parallel between thinking that "objectifying" requires that you regard consciousness as non-objective, and people who think that communism "works in theory" and is an objective, logical concept, with capitalism on the other side being a passionate, reasonless, faith-driven concept. Its the people who think that to be objective means to be cold, inhuman, to sacrifice others to self, to regard humans as ants serving the queen ant of society. It's the same premise that causes both viewpoints." nice point!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the compliments B)

I think a woman could only be insulted at being the object of a sincere desire if she believed that sex was somehow dirty and perverted. Moose, I think that what you mean when you talk about "objectifying" a woman is that, weirdly, it's not the woman that's the object of your desire: you don't want her, you want the sex regardless of object.

It is, as iouswuoibev indicated, a truly twisted and ugly mess. If all a man wants is physical gratification, then why does it matter whether there's a woman involved? Because what he's seeking is also an emotional gratification; he's trying to achieve an end without reference to means. He's a spiritual moocher, in other words. It might be insulting to be the "object" of such an unfocussed desire, but then you aren't the object of this desire; the emotional state produced by simulating the act of love, is. So, still, we women don't have anything to worry about on that score.

I think the only problem involved in this is that, if a woman mistakes this kind of desire for a sincere desire it can be very emotionally painful because it was so important to her that the man wanted her. It's very hard to remember that it's no reflection on you when something like that happens.

As for feminists; they are not jealous of beautiful women, they hate them. Like all haters-of-the-good-for-being-the-good they want to wreck the idea of beauty. As Toohey said (paraphrase): if you want to destroy greatness, don't attack greatness, people won't stand for it. ENSHRINE mediocrity, and greatness is destroyed.

Now, I would love to be more beautiful, but I haven't exactly been starved for men that found me attractive; my worst problem is that I think they are crazy and it gets really old for them really fast. I know this is irrational; I'm working on solving both problems by losing weight and dredging through my subconscious evaluations. The thing that I've found was that while it was always women complaining that men have some ridiculous unachievable standards of beauty, it was ALSO always women who mocked me for not adhering to same ridiculous unachievable standards and insisted that no male could EVER find me desirable. The guys, at worst, would tease me for being weird, and a loner, i.e. things I actually had control over.

The only males that ever teased me for being overweight (that I can recall) were my father and brothers. My dad did so, I conjecture, because he was embarrassed to have me around looking the way I did, and my brothers picked it up because it was a way for them to get a rise out of me.

So, if you REALLY want to talk objectification of women, look no further than . . . women. They do it CONSTANTLY and a THOUSAND times worse than men EVER do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know a woman that DOES think she's pretty enough....Though, I'd say my wife complains about it a lot less than anyone else I know. LOL

I got myself in trouble at a college forum discussing the relationship between men and women. We were talking about equality between the sexes, and I made a comment, based on a Rush song, saying that, while I believe equality of sexes, I don't believe we were made equal (i.e. certain things are GENERALLY easier for a certain sex, based on physiology). And when I address some of the psychological aspect of it, I mentioned that I thought that women wanted to be "gently dominated," or protected by men. And on the same line, that Men wanted to be the protector or aggressor. (There are, of course, exceptions to the rule...) Things that have been ingrained by cultural history and such. This, of course, angered many a feminists in the room (which was a bad room to be in, since it was clearly a "man-bashing" session anyways). I was lucky enough to attend with a friend (female) who understood what I was getting at, and agreed with me. It still didn't make for a happy crowd.

That said, I completely agree with everything Jmegansnow said.

The lyrics to the Rush song are-

"Animate"

POLARIZE ME

SENSITIZE ME

CRITICIZE ME

CIVILIZE ME

COMPENSATE ME

ANIMATE ME

COMPLICATE ME

ELEVATE ME

Goddess in my garden

Sister in my soul

Angel in my armor

Actress in my role

Daughter of a demon-lover

Empress of the hidden face

Priestess of the pagan mother

Ancient queen of inner space

Spirit in my psyche

Double in my role

Alter in my image

Struggle for control

Mistress of the dark unconscious

Mermaid of the lunar sea

Daughter of the great enchantress

Sister to the boy inside of me

My counterpart - my foolish heart

A man must learn to rule his tender part

A warming trend - a gentle friend

A man must build a fortress to defend

A secret face - a touch of grace

A man must learn to give a little space

A peaceful state - a submissive trait

A man must learn to gently dominate

-Neil Peart

Edited by Styles2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And when I address some of the psychological aspect of it, I mentioned that I thought that women wanted to be "gently dominated," or protected by men. And on the same line, that Men wanted to be the protector or aggressor. (There are, of course, exceptions to the rule...) Things that have been ingrained by cultural history and such. This, of course, angered many a feminists in the room (

I dont know why feminists would be angry at you because of that - this is essentially what most of them are (correctly) arguing anyway. Our present attitudes towards masculinity and feminity are largely a result of our contingent "cultural history" rather than being derived from nature in any objective sense. Theres a lot of feminist literature out there arguing that our gender/sexual categories have been historically constructed, unfortuately most of it seems to stem from Marxist frameworks that views the current attitudes we have as being 'oppressive'.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know why feminists would be angry at you because of that - this is essentially what most of them are (correctly) arguing anyway.

Perhaps because the previous sentence was "I don't believe we [the sexes] were made equal" ? Sometimes it's useful to read the post before you respond. :confused:

And no, there is nothing correct about what feminists argue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps because the previous sentence was "I don't believe we [the sexes] were made equal" ? Sometimes it's useful to read the post before you respond. :confused:

I read his post as "men and women arent equal...because of our cultural history", which is a fairly accurate statement of the standard feminist position (in as much as there is a 'standard feminist position'). If this is a misreading I'm sure Styles2112 will correct me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I was actually arguing that we (the sexes) function differently on a physiological level (i.e. body builds, hormones...etc), and it's been REINFORCED throughout cultural history. Though, much like that forum it, it was probably missed that I said that the sexes should be TREATED equally (i.e that if a woman want to play football with the varsity team in High school, and is GOOD enough to do so, she ought to be allowed). Though, I'm sure, that back then (and even now) I phrased things wrong and people took the wrong idea from what I was saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am re-reading "The Second Sex" by Simone De Beauvoir with renewed "Objectivist" eyes and I was struck by just how much Marxist/Feminists really understand the nature of the beast, but don't recognize him. She understands that it is the female's physiological nature that makes her somehwat "naturally" less apt for productive work. She mantains that the female is a slave to the reproductive mechanisms of the species and that makes her less able to pursue her "projects" which I think is an existentialist euphemism for "productive work". Thus she admits that it is woman's nature that plays the largest role of "oppression" against her, and it this that she rebels against; woman's metaphysics. She also realizes that it takes two to tango, that yes "men" have been the ones to oppress her, but that they also would not have been able to do it without the aggreement of women. It was the human society that oppressed women, and women are included in that. She realizes this, and yet still blames men. She also realizes that it was capitalism that has done more for the proletariat than any other thing, and yet still opposes it.

Evasion

Evasion

Evasion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am re-reading "The Second Sex" by Simone De Beauvoir with renewed "Objectivist" eyes and I was struck by just how much Marxist/Feminists really understand the nature of the beast, but don't recognize him. She understands that it is the female's physiological nature that makes her somehwat "naturally" less apt for productive work.
This isnt true, unless you are talking specifically about manual labour. Men tend to be stronger than women, but that is only an issue in a small percentage of jobs.

She mantains that the female is a slave to the reproductive mechanisms of the species and that makes her less able to pursue her "projects" which I think is an existentialist euphemism for "productive work". Thus she admits that it is woman's nature that plays the largest role of "oppression" against her
Women are only in labour for 9 months at a time, so I dont think it would get in the way that much. I would say that the main issue here is our cultural stereotype of women being the childraisers whereas men go out to work, and this doesnt stem from physiology alone.

, and it this that she rebels against; woman's metaphysics. She also realizes that it takes two to tango, that yes "men" have been the ones to oppress her, but that they also would not have been able to do it without the aggreement of women.
Well, would you say that blacks were responsible for slavery? I think the standard feminist answer to this would involve false consciousness and hegemony, although I dont think de Bouvoir was a marxist. Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isnt true, unless you are talking specifically about manual labour. Men tend to be stronger than women, but that is only an issue in a small percentage of jobs.
My main point is that this is HER argument. The argument I am speaking of is in regards to the history of women, and this assertion has to do with hunter/gatherer societies. It was a huge mistake for me to leave that out, I am sorry for my irresponsibility. I was not trying to say that in the modern world, women are naturally less able to be productive, becasue productivity has little to do with physical strength in the modern world. Sorry again for the confusion. I do though think that she has a point when it comes to being a slave of the reproductive process. Woman is victim to the rigors of her cycle and hormones and whatnot, and these experiences (if you ask any woman) are not enjoyable. She is at odds with her body sometimes, far more than a man is.

Women are only in labour for 9 months at a time, so I dont think it would get in the way that much. I would say that the main issue here is our cultural stereotype of women being the childraisers whereas men go out to work, and this doesnt stem from physiology alone.
Yes, that does play a part. Again it was more based on hunter/gatherer situations as a view of the history of "men's" oppression. I now realize just how sloppy my last post was. The marxist comment about her was in relation to her analysis of the industrial revolution and that fact that she has stated: paraphrase: the emancipation of women will be realized along with the emancipation of the proletariat.

Well, would you say that blacks were responsible for slavery? I think the standard feminist answer to this would involve false consciousness and hegemony, although I dont think de Bouvoir was a marxist.
Blacks were technologically overpowered when captured in Africa, and were a huge minority when they got here. Women have always made up roughly HALF THE POPULATION, so any aspect of society is therefore HALF their responsibility. This has not been a man's world because men have taken it, but because women have given it up as well.

And I am pretty sure she was a marxist, but I may be mistaken. Weren't most existentialists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women are only in labour for 9 months at a time, so I dont think it would get in the way that much. I would say that the main issue here is our cultural stereotype of women being the childraisers whereas men go out to work, and this doesnt stem from physiology alone.

Well, as soon as men can breast-feed a baby, then I'd say it's a largely cultural issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pregnancy, labor, what's the difference.

:lol::lol::lol:;)

Well, as soon as men can breast-feed a baby, then I'd say it's a largely cultural issue.

Well, now we have breast pumps and weird things that men can put around their neck that the bottle goes into so they can get the "joy of breast feeding."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points Megan. My fiancee is the same way when it comes to her weight. She's always terrified that I won't think she's pretty enough.

Returning to the actual topic again . . .

It will never help matters if you just tell her she's pretty. You also have to show her that you think she's pretty. My theory is that men have that dopey stunned expression for a reason, they just use it wrong: it's not appropriate when you forgot to get milk on the way home. It IS appropriate when your special lady gets all decked out. Just stand there and stare at her for a while, it's really the best compliment.

Oh and for the love of money don't tell her she looks "fine". She knows she looks "fine". She would not leave the house if she didn't look "fine". At the very least, she looks "nice" or even better "really nice!", graduating up to the dopey stare mentioned above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...