|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: About objectifying women - 5/19/2008 7:54:41 PM
|
|
|
landabee
Posts: 2918
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Central Florida
Status: offline
|
I am leaving this discussion for one reason:
The OP's slick presentation seems to me to be a sort of "cyber grooming".
He can spin the big words and psuedo-science with just enough scripture to lend an air of legitimacy.
The more we engage..... the more opportunity to present his case for objectification. I will not further promote the platform.
How a person could follow the four part links provided at the beginning of the thread, and still want to affirm such a horrible, degrading and sick means of treating women is beyond me.
If I were wearing sandals, I'd be shaking the dust.
Ciao.
_____________________________
"Sound theology discourages ignorance instead of promoting it." ~ CourdeLeon
Visit My Blog:
Eclairs!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: About objectifying women - 5/20/2008 12:07:27 PM
|
|
|
Auben
Posts: 1591
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Where pines tower and cranberries float
Status: online
|
quote:
I avoid the OED at times due to its tendency to include "cultural" terms. Maybe they do it to be relevant, but when the discussion is semantic, I find that it muddies things up. Other dictionaries do it too, but from what I've seen, our OED trumps them all.
Interesting, because you use a literary/culturally unused definition by Shakespeare in order to prove your point.
quote:
Main Entry:
1ob·ject
Pronunciation:
\ˈäb-jikt, -(ˌ)jekt\
Function:
noun
1 a: something material that may be perceived by the senses <I see an object in the distance> b: something that when viewed stirs a particular emotion (as pity) <look to the tragic loading of this bed…the object poisons sight; let it be hid — Shakespeare>
You have hardly proven that a human being is an object. You have only the simplest definition here and a trumped up Shakespeare quote.  'Object' has several definitions, one of which describes how calling a person an object ('that old object' for instance) is a slur because of its dehumanization. In that sense 'object' means ugly. All my quotes are Webster's Unabridged btw.
quote:
Now the definition not only covers what I'm trying to say, but it also covers human beings. In fact, I can point out that your extrapolation is clearly incorrect. Human beings have physical natures- physical bodies which obviously comes into the category of "a visible and tangible material product or substance". Our bodies are visible, they are tangible. They may not be fabric, but in the most basic definition, they are substance.
Let me break this down for you linguistically.
Visible=able to see
tangible and material=able to touch
product=a good or service which is the result of a process
substance=matter of definite chemical consistency
Product and substance are never used to describe human beings. There is a reason for this. It is because we use those words to describe things, specifically things which can be manipulated or processed. If this is a cultural ideal then it is one which is held by a majority of the world's languages. Most languages make very clear choices between human/inhuman, animate/inanimate.
quote:
That's a cultural idea, but it is not rational. [I think 99 pct of the people who are angry about my point are cuz they see it culturally and not rationally.]
Yeah, that's not patrionizing.
quote:
We can agree that human beings are not MERELY objects, not JUST objects, not ONLY objects. They are much more. But their physical bodies are, without a doubt categorised as tangible, physical, material objects. This is just reality, isn't it?
Human beings are also mammals but we refrain from calling each other animals. You are male but we try to refrain from calling you 'boy.'
quote:
On your next point of reacting to physical characteristics, your right, 100 percent. But objectification, in this definition (I call it the proper definition because it means what it says ), has nothing to do with the other processes.
You call it the proper definition not because it is correct but because it suits your purposes and is true in your eyes. I have yet to see a defintion which is clear and uninterpreted by you.
quote:
You can process something physically, in an "objective" way, and then move on into understand, feeling, nurturing, empathizing. Or it can even be vice versa, with the emotions coming first, and the objective later (in the case of the internet, we are engaging in the emotions without any objective processing).
Objective, while being related to objectify and object is not the same word and can't be used interchangably. It also has noun and adjective meanings which are slightly different. Be precise.
quote:
But the point I'm making is that these two are distinct and different. The "objective" and the "emphatic"(i think thats the wrong word), are two separate, distinct processes. Just because you objectify does not mean you cannot or will not empathize.
This makes no sense. Go back and check your two quoted terms I think you mean two other words.
quote:
You distinguish between the initial process and objectification, but I think they are one and the same. The initial process does not lead to empathizing and understanding automatically.
Here we get to the crux "I think they are one and the same." Show us how that works. In a properly socialized human being we work from the inside out. When we meet someone new first we examine the world from our centrist/selfish viewpoint (initial reaction). Then we have a moment of recognition that the other person is similar to us, equal to the respect we require for oursleves. In an improperly socialized human being there is no moment of empathy because no one else is equal to the centrist view. I agree that empathy is not automatic in all persons, but do you really want to admit that to that kind of sociopathology? Considering the message of the Gospels I wouldn't think that God created men to be completely centrist with no ability to understand the golden rule.
quote:
I think the true difference between the initial process and objectification is that objectification is when it is carried on for longer for other purposes. A medical checkup often involves treating a physical body like an object and checking physical characteristics. As does sports for another example. The whole thing is objectifying other players, objectifying the ball, perceiving it all in a very objective, physical sense.
I'm sure some doctors and athletes practice objectification (and soldiers for that matter), but I'm not sure we can agree that it is always a healthy means to deal with their occupations.
quote:
But we need to agree on how to define the terms first. Of course.
quote:
BTW, this is very intellectually stimulating. Thanks for jumping in. I'm eager to hear your response. [Sorry if I alienated everybody with all this technical mumbojumbo :P]
If you want anyone to respond you really need to pull back on the patronizing language. We have no problems understanding you but we may decide you simply aren't worth the time.
_____________________________
Tamara
~Everywhere is walking distance if you have the time~
|
|
|
|
|
RE: About objectifying women - 5/20/2008 12:18:18 PM
|
|
|
WhiteRoseBlessings
Posts: 26818
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Here, but subject to change . . . stay tuned!
Status: offline
|
Dear me, Tamara.
Color me embarassed!
All this time, I've been thinking you were a woman.
But how could a woman object have written such a intelligent, thought-provoking post.
Silly ole me.
I think I'll go sit with Cranky and play with the soft-furry kitties.
_____________________________
Sharon-Marie, you're more than expressive...you are relatively incomprehensible!
~ from one of y'all
|
|
|
|
|
RE: About objectifying women - 5/20/2008 12:27:50 PM
|
|
|
Calea37
Posts: 721
Joined: 10/2/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Auben
we may decide you simply aren't worth the time.
BINGO!
_____________________________
Calea
Isaiah 2:22 Stop trusting in man, who has but a breath in his nostrils. Of what account is he?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: About objectifying women - 5/20/2008 2:04:16 PM
|
|
|
azroadrunner
Posts: 248
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: Phoenix
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Calea37
quote:
ORIGINAL: Auben
we may decide you simply aren't worth the time.
BINGO!
I second that motion.
_____________________________
Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly broken ... lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket ... it will change ... it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. -C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: About objectifying women - 5/20/2008 2:50:07 PM
|
|
|
crankius
Posts: 4154
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhiteRoseBlessings
I think I'll go sit with Cranky and play with the soft-furry kitties.
What a delightful thought you dear sweet fragile little thing.
_____________________________
Do not be overly righteous, Nor be overly wise: Why should you destroy yourself?
Ecclesiastes 7:16
|
|
|
|
|
RE: About objectifying women - 5/20/2008 3:12:03 PM
|
|
|
Shugs
Posts: 29
Joined: 8/4/2005
Status: offline
|
God's law is fundamental truth. Not men or women's thoughts, perceptions blah blah blah. No point in posting further you ladies.. er objects have taken care of that. So I will simply dance on the grave of this thread.
*boogies down*
|
|
|
|
|
RE: About objectifying women - 5/21/2008 8:18:53 AM
|
|
|
monamie
Posts: 1375
Joined: 1/26/2006
From: OK
Status: offline
|
So essentially, what the OP is saying is that men are incapable to thinking with their brains, correct??? Only with.............well, you know.
_____________________________
"Lots of respectable people have been hit by trains."
Penny Wharvey McGill
|
|
|
|
|
RE: About objectifying women - 6/9/2008 1:46:54 PM
|
|
|
Ah-pappapishu
Posts: 28
Joined: 8/20/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: landabee
quote:
Sorry if I alienated everybody with all this technical mumbojumbo :P]
And why would you suppose/assume that women reading and responding would be alienated "bah dem big ole words?"
Sorry for the late response. I've been really busy lately. I'm in the process of moving. I believe my search for a place to stay in NYC finally came to an end 3 days ago. 
Try as I might, I couldn't find any reference to women in my post. Did I really mean to direct that at women, or are you basing your belief on a false assumption?
I can see the topic riles a lot of people up and makes them respond a bit funny. 
But I think the real issue is that social conditioning and popular belief, when not tempered and put in line with God's Word, produces conflict.
We need to let go of society's agenda when it is not in line with God's word. And when the popular stance on the issue ignores human nature, ignores the basic functioning of the brain in order to appease something that is not of God- no matter how good it may feel, it is not good, and it is not right.
And it will be quite evident, when it shows itself going against logic, against nature and against God.
I won't quote every single post, but I will try to respond to all of them. Unless I've responded to them before. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: About objectifying women - 6/9/2008 2:48:52 PM
|
|
|
saraimay75
Posts: 7381
Joined: 5/11/2005
From: Wherever God plants me.
Status: offline
|
quote:
I think that definition covers exactly what I mean. "to value the physical nature of something" is a mere extension of the meaning when you put it in verb form. [I apologise if my English is unclear btw. I'm bad at English but I'm trying ]
The fact that you are bad at English is the problem. You have NO IDEA what hat happen when a person considered an object. You definition is one of several. All must be considered when applied to a person.
Main Entry:
1ob·ject
Pronunciation:
\ˈäb-jikt, -(ˌ)jekt\
Function:
noun
1 a: something material that may be perceived by the senses <I see an object in the distance> b: something that when viewed stirs a particular emotion (as pity) <look to the tragic loading of this bed…the object poisons sight; let it be hid — Shakespeare>
_____________________________
God love admiration . . . I think it annoys God if you walk by the color purple in a field somewhere and don't notice it.
~Alice Walker~
http://360.yahoo.com/saraimay75
|
|
|
|
|
RE: About objectifying women - 6/9/2008 3:16:04 PM
|
|
|
Ah-pappapishu
Posts: 28
Joined: 8/20/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Auben
quote:
I avoid the OED at times due to its tendency to include "cultural" terms. Maybe they do it to be relevant, but when the discussion is semantic, I find that it muddies things up. Other dictionaries do it too, but from what I've seen, our OED trumps them all.
Interesting, because you use a literary/culturally unused definition by Shakespeare in order to prove your point.
quote:
Main Entry:
1ob·ject
Pronunciation:
\ˈäb-jikt, -(ˌ)jekt\
Function:
noun
1 a: something material that may be perceived by the senses <I see an object in the distance> b: something that when viewed stirs a particular emotion (as pity) <look to the tragic loading of this bed…the object poisons sight; let it be hid — Shakespeare>
You have hardly proven that a human being is an object. You have only the simplest definition here and a trumped up Shakespeare quote. 'Object' has several definitions, one of which describes how calling a person an object ('that old object' for instance) is a slur because of its dehumanization. In that sense 'object' means ugly. All my quotes are Webster's Unabridged btw.
quote:
Now the definition not only covers what I'm trying to say, but it also covers human beings. In fact, I can point out that your extrapolation is clearly incorrect. Human beings have physical natures- physical bodies which obviously comes into the category of "a visible and tangible material product or substance". Our bodies are visible, they are tangible. They may not be fabric, but in the most basic definition, they are substance.
Let me break this down for you linguistically.
Visible=able to see
tangible and material=able to touch
product=a good or service which is the result of a process
substance=matter of definite chemical consistency
Product and substance are never used to describe human beings. There is a reason for this. It is because we use those words to describe things, specifically things which can be manipulated or processed. If this is a cultural ideal then it is one which is held by a majority of the world's languages. Most languages make very clear choices between human/inhuman, animate/inanimate.
quote:
That's a cultural idea, but it is not rational. [I think 99 pct of the people who are angry about my point are cuz they see it culturally and not rationally.]
Yeah, that's not patrionizing.
quote:
We can agree that human beings are not MERELY objects, not JUST objects, not ONLY objects. They are much more. But their physical bodies are, without a doubt categorised as tangible, physical, material objects. This is just reality, isn't it?
Human beings are also mammals but we refrain from calling each other animals. You are male but we try to refrain from calling you 'boy.'
quote:
On your next point of reacting to physical characteristics, your right, 100 percent. But objectification, in this definition (I call it the proper definition because it means what it says ), has nothing to do with the other processes.
You call it the proper definition not because it is correct but because it suits your purposes and is true in your eyes. I have yet to see a defintion which is clear and uninterpreted by you.
quote:
You can process something physically, in an "objective" way, and then move on into understand, feeling, nurturing, empathizing. Or it can even be vice versa, with the emotions coming first, and the objective later (in the case of the internet, we are engaging in the emotions without any objective processing).
Objective, while being related to objectify and object is not the same word and can't be used interchangably. It also has noun and adjective meanings which are slightly different. Be precise.
quote:
But the point I'm making is that these two are distinct and different. The "objective" and the "emphatic"(i think thats the wrong word), are two separate, distinct processes. Just because you objectify does not mean you cannot or will not empathize.
This makes no sense. Go back and check your two quoted terms I think you mean two other words.
quote:
You distinguish between the initial process and objectification, but I think they are one and the same. The initial process does not lead to empathizing and understanding automatically.
Here we get to the crux "I think they are one and the same." Show us how that works. In a properly socialized human being we work from the inside out. When we meet someone new first we examine the world from our centrist/selfish viewpoint (initial reaction). Then we have a moment of recognition that the other person is similar to us, equal to the respect we require for oursleves. In an improperly socialized human being there is no moment of empathy because no one else is equal to the centrist view. I agree that empathy is not automatic in all persons, but do you really want to admit that to that kind of sociopathology? Considering the message of the Gospels I wouldn't think that God created men to be completely centrist with no ability to understand the golden rule.
quote:
I think the true difference between the initial process and objectification is that objectification is when it is carried on for longer for other purposes. A medical checkup often involves treating a physical body like an object and checking physical characteristics. As does sports for another example. The whole thing is objectifying other players, objectifying the ball, perceiving it all in a very objective, physical sense.
I'm sure some doctors and athletes practice objectification (and soldiers for that matter), but I'm not sure we can agree that it is always a healthy means to deal with their occupations.
quote:
But we need to agree on how to define the terms first. Of course.
quote:
BTW, this is very intellectually stimulating. Thanks for jumping in. I'm eager to hear your response. [Sorry if I alienated everybody with all this technical mumbojumbo :P]
If you want anyone to respond you really need to pull back on the patronizing language. We have no problems understanding you but we may decide you simply aren't worth the time.
I suppose of all the responses, yours was the one I was looking forward to the most. 
I don't read Shakespeare much. I'm not basing anything on him.
The connection is between: "something material that may be perceived by the senses" and our physical properties as human beings. It doesn't make us mere objects. But it does makes us corporeal. It should be pretty clear. But then again, your not the only one having trouble with it.
This has nothing to do with whether we like to define ourselves that way or not. It's not about what we like and don't like. It's about what is and what is not.
I did notice this quote:
quote:
I'm sure some doctors and athletes practice objectification (and soldiers for that matter), but I'm not sure we can agree that it is always a healthy means to deal with their occupations.
Please go ahead and explain to me a healthier means of dealing with their occupation. I'm all ears.
quote:
Human beings are also mammals but we refrain from calling each other animals. You are male but we try to refrain from calling you 'boy.'
I did mention before that as human beings, our physical properties render us PARTIALLY corporeal. You never addressed it directly- is that true or is it not?
You did give me a lot of material like the above. I want to ask, are you refraining because it is incorrect? Or simply because of your preference, feelings or culture? In the end I think the truth and reality is more important than feelings and preference. But I want to hear your answer.
quote:
You call it the proper definition not because it is correct but because it suits your purposes and is true in your eyes. I have yet to see a defintion which is clear and uninterpreted by you.
Find me a better word that describes cognition of physical entities. [I wish I could.] Until then, objectify will do for me.
quote:
Here we get to the crux "I think they are one and the same." Show us how that works. In a properly socialized human being we work from the inside out. When we meet someone new first we examine the world from our centrist/selfish viewpoint (initial reaction). Then we have a moment of recognition that the other person is similar to us, equal to the respect we require for oursleves. In an improperly socialized human being there is no moment of empathy because no one else is equal to the centrist view. I agree that empathy is not automatic in all persons, but do you really want to admit that to that kind of sociopathology? Considering the message of the Gospels I wouldn't think that God created men to be completely centrist with no ability to understand the golden rule.
Where do you get this from? I don't agree, but its interesting and I'd love to see your sources.
I guess everything can be summed up by your answer to this question: Do you believe the 'cognition of physical entities' (notice I didn't use objectify) is (a) something that should be entirely eradicated from the human race, or (b) something that has a place in nature, in society?
It really is as simple as that. Of course, only one of those answers is in line with reality, logic and God's Word. I'll let you figure out yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: About objectifying women - 6/9/2008 3:21:09 PM
|
|
|
Ah-pappapishu
Posts: 28
Joined: 8/20/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhiteRoseBlessings
I'm not "scared" of anything; nor do I need you to be so condescending.
Simply put, I strongly disagree with the entire concept of objectifying any human.
As an example, slavery came out of such nonsense.
Additionally, while the below post wasn't written directly to me, I can sincerely and most definitely tell you right here and right now that I have no need, desire nor intention of ever "coming to terms" with such a repulsive theory.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ah-pappapishu
It's a fairly easy concept to understand. I hope you come to terms with it someday.
Ooh, I almost missed this one. I was referring to the fact that everybody has physical features. You can think of it as repulsive if you want. But then I wonder how you'd be able to live with yourself, considering you have something so "repulsive" as a God-given human body attached to your existence on this earth. Are you aware of how fatally flawed your response was just there?
quote:
ORIGINAL: landabee
quote:
Try as I might, I couldn't find any reference to women in my post. Did I really mean to direct that at women, or are you basing your belief on a false assumption?
This thread is located in "She Says" Only women can respond here.
Nice try.
Glad that you found a new home.
The forum title or description in no way explicitly excludes men from posting in the threads. In fact, I assumed at least some of you were guys. But nevermind that- I'll make myself at home anyway. We'd get along great
quote:
The fact that you are bad at English is the problem. You have NO IDEA what hat happen when a person considered an object. You definition is one of several. All must be considered when applied to a person.
To be fair I did clarify later on. If I clarified myself too early, I wouldn't have gotten such a cornucopia of passionate responders. [Most of whom would love to strangle me right about now. ]
But honestly, I think it is very revealing about how society and feminism wants people to think, even if it means going against human nature, good sense, and most importantly, God's Word. I draw the line there. But evidently a lot of people don't.
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
Should I use a bow in my hair? That certainly looks innocent! 
Can't forget the makeup. Got to make the most of my pouty lips! 
Like my hair? I think it perfectly sets of my 
