Overcoming Objectification : A Carnal Ethics

While reading “Gender,” an essay by Jack Halberstam, the topic of sexism was brought to the forefront of my mind. It has been brought up more often in conversation in the modern era, issues such as how a few cruel insults pertain to female reproductive anatomy and, in a sense, degrade females and ultimately identify them, as well as femininity, as inherently “bad”. Such a thought stemmed from how Halberstam touches on the “problematic stabilization of the meaning of ‘women’ and ‘female’”: meaning there is no room for argument when it comes to your gender—you’re either a girl or not. You either fit into a strict mold, or you do not.

Throughout history, women have constantly been objectified and forced into submission by the male dominated society. Simone de Beauvoir’s philosophical work, The Second Sex, echoes the intense oppression of women and reflects the first wave feminist movement. Her existentialist decoding of genders resulted in the idea of the Other, which explores the phenomenon of women forced into the role of an object, while men are the subject. In the second chapter, “The Girl”, Beauvoir further studies the idea of this oppression during one’s transition from a girl into a woman. Beauvoir states that no matter how much freedom and sense of self a girl holds, she is always forced into the role of the Other in society. Beauvoir 's idea of the Other held

Major Claim: The objectification and “currency” of a women’s body is the pivotal focus for the readings presented in class. It is discussed in the readings about how women are only considered for their looks, and not their personal depth or knowledge. Additionally, intersectionality is observed and how these objectifications effect marginalized groups. Finally, the term of enlightened sexism is introduced and how this concept is dangerous to and reverses feminism.

3) Objectification of Women was conceptually defined as a means for one to conceal the biological perception of womens’ characteristics and replace it with sexual objectification. Operationally it was measured using a scale to rank 10 body attributes, either as physically competent or attractive, from most to least important. 4) Gender-schematicity was conceptually defined as how feminine or masculine an individual is. Operationally it was measured using a 5-point scale Personal Attributes Questionnaire. 5) Physical Distancing was conceptually defined as purposefully physically avoiding the individual strictly to evade their menstruation. Operationally it was measured using chi-square analysis to measure the number of chairs between the confederate and the research participant (Roberts et al., 2002, p. 134-135).

Elizabeth Spelman in Woman as Body - Ancient and Contemporary Views addresses how ancient philosophers, specifically Plato, viewed women in society and how that view is impacting the role of women in modern times. At surface value, it seems as if Spelman is placing the blame for the contemporary view of women as nothing more than body on Plato’s advocated ideas of dualism, which equates, most simply, that women are inferior to men. But after completing Spelman’s complete journal, I think that the more pressing problem outlined in Spelman’s argument is how the oppression of women is directly connected to the oppression of groups based on race, class, ability and a variety of other things. Many people approach the problems of sexism separating women from these other groups, but in reality women are apart of all of these groups and therefore have to undergo two or more forms of intertwining oppression.

Females of this generation are being raised in a world where women’s bodies are viewed as objects.

This objectification of women is unacceptable in modern times. According to Isaac Kant’s article Feminist Perspectives, “objectification involves the lowering of a person to the status of an object.” In other words, it is also the bringing down of a person with humanity. Humanity is one’s rational nature and ability for rational decisions. Humanity is what makes us special. It differentiates us from animals and objects. In modern society, it is crucial that everyone respects that humanity in one another.

There are many companies in the world today that put an idea of this perfect female body into the heads of women. These images lead to a faulty standard men hold of women and their bodies and that women strive to become. Margaret Atwood addresses the issue of the way men view the female body by writing her essay in the viewpoints of a male so the reader can better understand how the expectation men have of the female body is unrealistic. First, she uses an allusive comparison to show the male expectation of the female body and how it is objectified as if it were a doll that comes with accessories. Next, she uses an anecdote with defamiliarization to show how the way the father views a Barbie doll and the way it portrays the female body to young girls is hypocritical. Lastly, Margaret Atwood uses insidious diction to talk about how men not only view the female body as a product but how they also use the female body as a product which can be sold amongst businessmen. In The Female Body, Margaret Atwood uses many rhetorical devices to convey how the female body is viewed through the eyes of men.

According to Margaret Atwood in The Female Body, a woman’s body is used in today’s culture “to sell and advertise products”. These products vary from “door knockers, bottle openers, clocks with ticking bellies, lampshades, and nutcrackers”. By having stores sell these items they are completely promoting the objectification of women to help sell their goods and services which is down right direful. How are women expected to ever be treated equal if business’ continue to sell discriminatory product, lessening the view of the female anatomy. Materialistic items are not the only way a female’s body is exploited in today’s culture. Aside from bottle openers and clocks, women are universally seen as a “renewable” sex symbol The Female Body (pg. 1013 para. 6) especially in magazines.

Everywhere you turn, there are magazine covers, movies, reality TV shows that portray woman in a sexual light. When was the last time that we as a society sat down and realized the effect that this is having on young girls, teens and even grown women. The portrayal of women as sexual objects in these and many other types of media have greatly affected the mindset of society. What affects has this had you ask? There are there main effects that we will explore. First, is the effect it has on their self-image. Second, is the effect on how they portray themselves in their relationships. Third is the effect it has on their mental state.

Humanity has struggled with determining the best option to solve their ethical dilemmas that they run into in their life. Analyzing and determining the best option to take can leave an individual lost in faith and building a relationship with God. Building a God foundation in your life will help you in every ethical dilemma that you face. The only way to solve an ethical dilemma with viewing pornography is to view the dilemma according to a Christian worldview and compare different options to solve the ethical dilemma.

When posed with the question “What is woman?” it seems a daunting task to lay an umbrella statement to describe an entire gender. Upon further reflection, however, it seems that this overwhelming inability to answer the question, may in fact, be the answer to the question itself. Within the past two decades Maria Lugones and Elizabeth Spelman, Caroline Whitbeck, Geraldine Finn, and Helene Cixous have addressed the meaning of woman. There is not a concrete answer to “What is woman?” either produced by women or produced through men’s perceptions of women.

To be feminine is to be pretty, sexualized, and passive. “Marked Women” by Deborah Tannen, “Sexism in English: Embodiment and Language” by Alleen Nilsen, and “A Woman’s Beauty: Put Down or Power Source?” by Susan Sontag are three essays that show these negative connotations of femininity. Together, they exemplify that females are “marked” as pretty, sexualized, and passive.

This classification is constructed by discourse with the objective of recreating hegemonic paradigms and perpetuating current power relations. Defining Women and Men as universal categories disguises the interests it serves. Therefore, anything that is defined as natural or universal should be studied critically. She writes, “Signification is not a founding act, but rather a regulated process of repetition that both conceals itself and enforces its rules precisely through the production of substantializing effects” (185). The assumption that there is a pre-discursive body with a pre-determined sexuality and gender sustains oppression against subjugated and marginalized subjects. Disconnected from the body, she suggests, gender can include more than two versions. The analysis of these concepts--or deconstruction-- provides tools to the socially oppressed to fight against the existent social

In effect, it was this very labeling of the female as 'other' that "was the starting point for contemporary feminist theory" (Mascia-Lees & Sharpe, 2000:22). By labeling the female as 'other', the dominant patriarchal discourse of modernism retains its position as subject (2000:22). Feminism aims to reverse the power relations of such modernist binary arguments, allowing those labeled as 'other' the chance to claim the title of 'subject' (2000:23). Nevertheless, the fact remains that modernism is ultimately a patriarchal discourse, a discourse effective only in its entirety and is thus unable to be 'cropped' to the liking of feminists (Hekman, 1990:6). As a result, by remaining