You may have read an article about how Getty removed their "sexiest fans" gallery due to receiving backlash from social media. What's interesting is Vogue Magazine posted a similar type of article about men, which didn't seem to receive much in terms of outrage. Is it more offensive to objectify women than it is to objectify men?
The whole article from Vogue discusses football players and describes them as "Reasons to Watch the 2018 World Cup." From talking about one player's lips and smile to another player's abs, this article clearly objectifies men in a manner that would be completely unacceptable if they were women. The primary difference is the reaction this piece has received versus the reaction Getty received for doing something similar. The reaction Getty received forced them to completely remove the gallery and offer an apology. As of writing this article, however, Vogue's article is still live and the reaction from social media has been relatively benign.
Personally, I do not believe the article from Vogue causes any offense, nor do I think it requires any outrage, so why do many of us consider the Getty gallery to be offensive? If society considers anything negative against women to be more significant, is that in itself a form of sexism? Some could assume that men simply don't care as much as women when it comes to these issues and that people are becoming overly prone to outrage. You may be led to believe this if you read some of the comments. The majority of the comments on the Fstoppers article about the Getty gallery are from men expressing their unhappiness in regards to the outrage. Effectively, men are outraged about women being outraged about something. The discussions tend to focus on how people are just looking for things to be outraged about and how this infringes freedom of speech. Whether or not this affects freedom of speech could be debatable; in any case, we are seeing more frustration against "political correctness." We also see more and more companies developing themselves to be seen as forward-thinking and modern when it comes to how women are presented, yet, we don't see much of that happening for men.
There are many that assume issues relating to men aren't taken as seriously by society in general. Maybe men's issues don't matter as much and we're simply expendable to some extent, which is horrible to say the least. The saying "women and children first" comes to mind. An article from The Guardian discusses this specifically, and in practice, there have been situations that suggest this is not as relevant or true. There are no actual laws that dictate this either; even still, the sentiment seems to remain.
I think it's important to consider context too. For the longest time, women haven't had many of the rights that men have benefited from. Although in Europe, two of the more prominent countries (U.K and Germany) do have female heads of state. Is this enough? Could it be that strong reactions are required when female rights are infringed or if something is damaging the perception of women in order to bring some balance and equality? The outrage we see now could be due to the many numbers of years where women didn't have rights and it's strong reactions that have helped push the progress. Maybe the reason companies like Getty are actively trying to be seen as modern and forward-thinking is that they have deep-rooted issues that need to be shaken off. Progress can be slow, but fortunately, we've seen it happen and we can help it continue.
Personally, I don't think either company did anything majorly wrong with either the galleries or the articles, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm right. I don't assume to know the answer; I can only describe my own thoughts and ask questions that I feel are relevant. Ultimately, there're two facts I'm certain we can agree on: people find people attractive and attraction is fundamental to how we operate. Just because a particular article or gallery shows individuals of a certain gender as being attractive does not mean all of their other characteristics are negated. In some sense, this reminds me of the fundamental attribution error. Having said that, It's important to remember how a single image can be extremely impactful. Photographs have the potential to drastically change the political landscape for better or worse. Images can become symbols with incredible meaning. Maybe we need to be more conscious of how an image or a gallery is portrayed and what message it sends. Once again, context is important, and in the current climate, with many women trying to develop and improve perceptions, maybe the pendulum does need to swing a little farther to one side before we see some proper equality.
It is simple. There is a power dynamic that differs between men and women in most of the world. Women, until fairly recently in the West and still are in other parts of the world, were/are essentially the domain (read: property) of men in law and in practice.
The fight to undo this objectification is still fairly new and despite having improved somewhat, still rages as we have seen with all of the #MeToo stories.
This is why objectifying women for entertainment is different than objectifying men for entertainment. The same way it would be much different calling a white person the N-Word vs. someone of African dissent.
Well said Rob.
Some interesting points and I can’t say I disagree. The context is important and I do discuss that.
I also think this situation is unique because it was Getty and people felt it was beneath their standards. Playboy just went back to a semi-nude format after trying to go non-nude, so I don't think the "sexy women" industry is in any danger.
“It is simple”
It never is.
You can reduce it to something that might look simple to you, but that’s not the same thing.
If “objectification” is (morally) unacceptable, shouldn’t it be for all people regardless of their gender, religion, race, etc.?
I know gender double standards are common in many cultures. Reversal is not the solution in my opinion.
You mention #MeToo. That’s about sexual harassment. Does the gender of the victim make a difference in how we should act?
I think gender should make a difference in how we evaluate something if gender makes a difference. Which in this case, I think I can demonstrate that it does. It depends which moral view you're taking. Is it the deontological ethical view that the morality of the act is the most important thing, regardless of the consequences? Or is it the consequentialist view that the morality of the act is measured by it's consequences? I lean toward the latter. That sexually objectifying men is bad, but not nearly the same as objectifying women because of the historical harm women's sexual objectification has caused.
“…the morality of the act is measured by it's consequences”
The consequences to whom?
All woman simply because they have the same gender?
Attractive woman as a sub group?
Black women as a different subgroup?
Gay women as a different subgroup?
Muslim woman as a different subgroup?
What about attractive black Muslim gay women?
The “historical harm” and “power dynamics” are different for every group and subgroup you can think of down to each individual.
Where do you draw the line and why?
If you want more equality between men and women it seems counterproductive to create new differences in the process.
Every single woman on Earth suffers from sexism to some degree. There may be other power dynamics at play, which is the principle upon which intersectional feminism is built, but sexism affects every group of women you mentioned.
To “some degree” is not “to the same degree” nor is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's gender something only women can suffer from.
If morality is measured by its consequences and you differentiate between groups who decides where the dividing lines should be? Gender based discrimination will vary a lot between cultures, religions and political systems.
By the way, if you choose “the hottest actor” and only nominate white actors, colored actors will suffer.
Now if you replace “actor” with “fan” and “white” by “female”, what do you replace “colored” with?
Discrimination based on gender is something that in most cases (read 99 out of a 100) is something women suffer, men don't.
There might be anecdotal cases, and individually they are to be taken seriously and qualified as morally wrong, but the reality is that we don't suffer that.
In the few fields that it's been widespread, it's been also about men having twisted views about virility and not about women enforcing a chauvinistic policy (a good example is nursing, and it's interesting to see how it's drastically changing now that the market needs more nurses, and as a society we are evolving to value interpersonal skills and empathy more).
Given that reality, and given that objectification does form part of the roots of rape culture, being one of the pillars of men giving themselves rights over unwilling women it IS more worrying, and does deserve a stronger response.
I do think objectifying is also impoverishing what attraction really is, and packaging that drive for consumption, to sell products, magazines, whatever, and it should be criticised and countered, not from prudish taboos, but from informed and open discussion, BUT the consequences of the same behaviour, towards men and women are vastly different (again in most cases, which doesn't diminish the individual cases that don't adjust to the norm, doesn't mean we have to ignore those).
It is also astonishing to see the tone deafness of getty, they inability to see the social moment we are in... People in power sometimes struggle to see the shifts in values and adapt.
I’m not arguing men suffer the same, I’m arguing woman as a group is too big a generalization.
Compare living in western Europe or the US to living in a country where girls have no access to education, where they are forced into an arranged marriage when they are teenagers and where they will be mutilated or killed if someone rapes them because even though they are the victim they still bring shame or dishonor upon their family.
Rob Davis argued that he leans toward “the consequentialist view that the morality of the act is measured by its consequences”. If you do so, you can’t use the generalization “women” in my opinion. In consequentialism the morality is determined by the potential consequences of an action and they are not the same for all women on the planet.
Another view (deontological ethics) boils down to; these are the rules, if you break the rules, you are morally wrong. Human rights are based on this view.
A quote from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 2):
“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
Now I don’t think a consequentialist view and a deontological view are necessarily each other’s opposites, but this might not be the place to have a discussion about all the nuances involved.
Why? why wouldn't it be the place? photography has played an important role in the whole objectification process in modern times. This is a site about photography, and it's refreshing to see a discussion about ethics, with social commentary instead of gear talk or technical articles.
Also, i see what you mean about the generalisation, and i understand why you say it.. but to me it doesn't seem like a good argument to counter anything that has been said in response to getty's gallery.
Yes consequences are different depending on the context, yes there is a vast difference between living in a rich, western country compared to other places...
Do those differences eliminate the fact that objectification has very pernicious consequences wherever we look?
Since it does, the generalisation isn't one that hinders discussing the problem, which can be broken down in more detail when context and particular situations are discussed.
Sadly women as a collective suffer varying degrees of violence almost everywhere, in part consequence of being thought of as objects to be coveted or possessed.
If we follow Immanuel Kant, and I’m inclined to do so, all sexual desire is necessarily objectifying. If so, we can't help ourselves unless we get rid of sexual desire. Even if you agree with Kant there might still be a difference between male sexual desire and female sexual desire (male being dominant, female being submissive). The latter would probably mean women do not objectify men for entertainment. I think they do objectify men or at least I know enough women that do. Series like “Sex and the City” gave objectifying man a platform and women loved it.
People have sexual desires; therefore, they will objectify others. I don’t have a problem with that as long as people respect the rights of the people they objectify.
Wow.. too many assumptions there...
-First, sexual desire isn't necesarily objectifying, being a complex mechanism that has a lot of variants, some biological and others social. It CAN be objectifying given certain values and practises but it doesn't NEED to be.
-Assuming that male and female sexual desire can be categorized into two distinct categories and ,on top, qualifying them according to outdated gender roles isn't only an oversimplification, but it is also an ideological or moral choice (or the comfort of not questioning our own upbringing, wich is again a choice)..
Sexual desire is complex and it can vary a great deal between individuals, the last 5 decades have been amazing in the strive to break the outdated and monolithic views about gender and sex... and with wider tolerance we see the rise of identities and choices that up until very recently were penalized or openly repressed.
I find the two attempts to obliquely disqualify the critique of getty's choice as completely incoherent between them, one criticising because of an ample generalisation, the next resting on assumptions and an oversimplified view of sexual desire.
This is not a personal attack, i don't know you, i don't mean by this that you are a chavinist...
I think being uncomfortable with people protesting old social inerties is a normal response of individuals facing social change.
If we go back to the root of why getty's gallery caused so much outcry: Are you seriously ok with the consequences of how our view of women have affected them as a group? or you don't believe that drive to present them as passive objects of desire is one of the roots of violence and abuse towards them?
Because in my view those are the only two options to not be at least partially concerned by things like these...
You can use as much capitals as you want but that doesn’t change what Kant has written about this subject.
I’m not going to write an essay about this here. If you want to know how sexual objectification in feminist theory reaches back to the philosophy of Kant, read something like “Sexual Objectification: From Kant to Contemporary Feminism” from Papadaki.
“Are you seriously ok with the consequences of how our view of women have affected them as a group?”
My English must be really bad if you think that is what I meant.
I wrote: “People have sexual desires; therefore, they will objectify others. I don’t have a problem with that as long as people respect the rights of the people they objectify”.
What I mean by that is that I think people (or at least average males) have sexual desires and objectify others (females in most cases, but there is also homosexuality). That’s what people do when they watch porn for instance. People have fantasies, I don’t think you can stop that. It’s not what we think, it not our view, it’s how we act, what we do and in the things we do we have to respect the rights of other people. Respecting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a good starting point, but we are nowhere near doing that, not even in our so called western civilization.
"If society considers anything negative against women to be more significant, is that in itself a form of sexism?"
No, it's a sign that that issue disproportionately affects women. Because of sexism. Women are routinely evaluated and either accepted or rejected purely based on their physical appearance, and men are not. This is why there is disproportionate outrage towards the Getty gallery.
Feminists have actually been fighting for men's issues to be taken seriously for decades, which society at large would realize if feminists were listened to instead of a target of mockery. Also, the phrase "women and children first" exists because women and children are thought of as resources.
You had me until "...the phrase "women and children first" exists because women and children are thought of as resources."
Right? Yawn. I'm so tired of all this crap I just tune it out now. I wont even read the articles.
Yet you'll make time to join the comments so everyone knows how little you care.
Kind of sounds like the whole "women and children first" thing is a bit of a chivalrous urban legend.
https://www.history.com/news/women-and-children-first-on-sinking-ships-i...
Sietske's right about women historically being viewed as resources though. Google the legal doctrine of "coverture." The legacy of which is part of why people, even today, will say things like "a woman can't be raped by her husband."
Interesting article but regardless its genesis, which the article doesn't really answer, and the beliefs of, undoubtedly, a lot of individuals throughout history, the majority of Western Civilization holds women and children in high esteem for their own worth. As for the sinking ship thing, it wouldn't make sense for anyone to say, 'save my assets (women and children) first and me, second.'
The thing about journalism (wait for it...), as we've recently discussed, is it can be molded through inclusion or exclusion of facts and, sometimes, outright lies. How much more difficult would it be to sift through the journalism of past eras and hope to glean the absolute truth about, well, anything. When faced with such dilemmas, I ask myself, "What would I rather be wrong about?" The greater error is always being wrong so I'd prefer to make a mistake I can live with than one I can't.
In this case, as in most, I'd rather be wrong in assuming the best in people than be wrong by assuming the worst. JMO
I wouldn't agree with the premise that Western Civilization hold women and children in high esteem. Not at least as far as social structures are concerned. At least for women, we hold them in high esteem when they are one of the good ones, fulfilling the roles that do not threaten the status quo (i.e. sex, motherhood).
Well, I know we have different points of view and, certainly, different experiences. We'll just have to disagree, agreeably. :-)
You’re going to have to provide evidence for your claims. Men aren’t evaluated based on their appearance?
Women suffer more?
I’m not suggesting I know the answer but you’re making the claims here.
Women and children are thought of as resources?
Women are judged on their appearances in ways that men are not. For example, look into the stories of aging actresses-- they will tell you that they were unable to get work when they aged, when aging actors did not suffer the same way.
Also, perhaps it would be more understandable if I said women and children were (and some places, still are) thought of as property rather than resources. But I would argue that women were considered valuable as property because of the things they can produce -- children -- which would make them a resource, in my opinion. A historical, possibly apocryphal, illustration of women-as-resource would be the rape of the Sabine women.
The movie industry is not indicative of society as a whole. It’s a small tiny section.
Also men in the movie industry are judged on their looks too. Leading men are not average looking by any means.
Age is an important factor for men too, it’s one of the reasons why Brad Pitt isn’t playing Thor.
"You’re going to have to provide evidence for your claims. Men aren’t evaluated based on their appearance?"
There is lots of research out there that comes to this conclusion:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002210311000288X
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036840010027568
There's plenty more where this came from...
You haven’t described what conclusions you draw from the studies.
That women are more likely to be evaluated based on their appearances than men. Wasn't that the question?
Well apparently chivalry is dead, and was never a good thing in the first place? Okay...
but are men really all that powerful when looking at the grand scheme of things? rape is the exception, not the norm. try approaching a woman that's "out of your league" and see if you get a date. we live in a time where complimenting a woman physically is ok if you're Brad Pitt but not ok if you're a greaseball living with your mother at 25. in fact, the latter could get you thrown in jail, publicly shamed or both, for sexual harassment.
in some ways, the balance of power has shifted far beyond the middle, while in others it has hardly changed. socially, the shift has gone in feminists' favor yet institutionally, the pendulum has mostly remained stuck. in the real, logical world, neither is right.
Over the spectrum of society, yes. It's not that a woman can never be more powerful than a man, it's just that usually they are not, by far. It's not even close.
Beauty and sexuality are powerful in very limited ways. Much like a hamburger is powerful. I would do almost anything for a burger right now, but that's because I'm hungry not because I have so much respect for cows. I appreciate cows in that they satisfy my needs, but not for their own good. I don't respect cows so much I'm willing to take down fences and let them live their lives however they want.
And now that society has changed it's views somewhat that if I go up to a cow and start abusing it I could get arrested for animal abuse and have my life ruined -- but that still doesn't make the cow powerful.
P.S. Women are not cows. I'm simply using cows symbolically to represent exploitation. :)
Excellent analogy. I don't entirely agree with your conclusion but we have to leave something for tomorrow. ;-)
Unreal. Everything is "offensive" to someone these days, and it only takes one single whiney voice among millions to ruin the fun for everyone else.
If we believe it’s more offensive to objectify women than it is to objectify men, isn’t that inherently sexist?
I would say so, but then I also think most things depend on context.
It's not that people believe it's "more" offensive, it's that objectifying women has led to an abusive culture, where harassment and violence is very real. Most of my female friends have experienced some kind of harassment or abuse.. and they live in pretty "advanced" societies.. i as a male have never experienced any abuse that has it's roots in objectification.. not saying it can't happen, but statistically, for the vast majority of people it doesn't...while most women have at some point lived an abusive situation.
In that context, objectification is wrong period, but for women it has more pernicious and violent consequences, and that is the basis for a greater outcry and a harsher stance against it.
A lot of males fail to see this because they live in a bubble, a place of privilege where that fear doesn't exist, where most men will never live something like that, and in wich most men will have reasons to be able to believe that facing it they would fight or they would react. It's a very different experience for women.
It's interesting to see that when it does happen to men, the reaction is a lot of the times the same: shock, shame, anguish and hardship... read about Terry Crew's experience, and how so many assholes have mocked him, or displayed vain stupid preconceptions wrapped around a toxic virility ideal. The thing is that Terry's case is a drop in the ocean compared to what women as a collective suffer in a daily basis.
Its more complicated because of the very objectification and the obvious differences in how men and women are sexualised.
Sexualisation and objectification are not the same.
When men are sexualised it is often in a very active way, their power and agency is not diminished.
A 'Sexy' man is not shown to be passive, weak, and submissive in the way a woman is.
A few more articles like this and I'm going to F off your website. American men are going to look at pictures of beautiful women whether anyone likes it or not. If this damages women in some way you are unable to express, I don't care. Only those who've been poisoned by feminism like you, Usman, imagine that American women and their lackey running dog male allies should tell us what we view, how we think about women or anything else. I've lived in three countries since the hormones kicked in and American women are in a distant third place for grace, wit and intellect. They are not morally or spiritually qualified to tell me what to do and they're not going to. I don't respect poorly reasoned, fuzzy-headed notions of the advancement of the American woman. These tend to be based on restrictions to how I behave and think and are inherently fascist. If I'm the problem - good. I don't respect your views and I don't need the positive regard of anyone who believes as you do.
Did you read the article at all, if you have I highly doubt you've understood any of what I wrote?
Stop projecting and making extremely wild assumptions and nonsense accusations, actually read the article properly and then maybe we can talk.
Why even try? His rant is filled with "poorly reasoned, fuzzy-headed notions". Let him walk away... If he isn't willing to read anything and react to what he assume is the context then he's not going to add anything of value.
#triggered
Good lord, those vogue editors did not do very good research if that's all they could come up with!
I would say, from a female's perspective(which I seem to be the only one at the time I post this) that does get cat called and has been harassed by men, that it is something we still have to face on a DAILY basis. It's unwanted and unneeded commentary from men, or interaction that has nothing to do with the situation we're in. Granted, not all men are doing these things, but it IS still very prevalent today.
There's a big difference between the article that is more centered about the footballer, their personal/professional lives,and that of a gallery that was of women who could not give consent to be photographed, that it's sole purpose is to arouse the male viewer by objectifying the woman and her body. The footballers are working professionals up for discussion, and looking over that article there wasn't but 2 or 3 mentions of physical appearance. The rest, again, was about them in general and why you should cheer for them. So, it's really not a comparative situation, and more grasping at straws. Now, if Vogue had done shots of these guys crotch area, and talked about it, then there might be a comparison.
The Getty gallery was centered on women showing cleavage, semi-upskirts, short shorts/skirts and tight fitting clothes. The Vogue article, again, shows NONE of the sort. The women were objectified regardless of what they were wearing, or how they looked. It was uncalled for to shoot them without consent, and put it in a 'sexiest fan' gallery.
Women have often been seen as nothing more than pretty placeholders at sports events, and that we're not really in to the game, but going there for our partners. It's just not true, and women (maybe not all) do like sports. This applies to every single athletic event where a woman might go, and if the woman enjoys it she MUST be pitching for her own 'team'(something I was told by a man when I mentioned I liked baseball) . So we're either really pretty , and just there as the man's arm candy, or we're lesbians. It's frustrating.
I agree with some of your points but there a few things I think are debatable. For one the footballers and fans are both people doesn’t matter if they’re working at the time or not. A person is still a person.
Also personal responsibility and personal choices are important things to consider. Why is Rhonda Rousey not just a placeholder and instead is one of the highest paid fighters in the UFC? Effectively I think individual identity is far far more valuable and important than group identity.
There are of course problems that need to be resolved so I’m not trying to suggest women don’t face issues because that’s not true. Instead I would say that generally the narrative is framed as men not having any real problems and things are fine and only women suffer. Both genders have their respective problems and I think if we worked together instead of dividing ourselves we could get much more done.
In any case I’m very glad you commented, thank you.
I think you misunderstand what I meant by bringing up that they're working professionals. Yes, they are people, however, their job opens them up for criticism, and commentary the same way any actor or actress is. It's not an invasion of personal space or privacy when the celebrity is in a public situation. With that said, normal or non-celebrity folks like their privacy even in public space. So, yes there is a difference.
You're bringing up an example of an ATHLETE not a female in the audience. If we want to talk about RR, and the very huge double standard of sexism in the athletic world we can. Because RR has been objectified where as her male counterparts have not.
Men do face sexual harassment, judgement and all sorts of bad things. More from their peers than females. I stand for men just as much as women in personal rights. But in this situation it was about women being objectified by Getty, and a huge reach by you with a Vogue article that is not even comparative.
It's hard to come together and change the world when sexism and harassment is still prevalent. It's hard to change the world when young girls and women are being kidnapped, and sold into sex slavery for rich men. It's hard to change the world when young girls and women are forced to have FGM, have their clitoris removed, their labia sewn shit and subjected to subservient roles by their husbands because they are seen as less than their male counterpart. Or fear abuse, dismemberment or worse because they are women.
We could go back and forth on this subject, but it would be a fruitless endeavor.
I’d say the major problem with how you’re discussing this is by framing this as men vs women.
It’s not men who are kidnapping young girls it’s horrific individuals that are criminals and need to be brought to justice.
In the same way it’s not fair for me to blame women for some of the major life changing negative things that have happened to me by some people. I hold the individuals responsible and not say that this is a problem for women. Essentially men and women don’t exist in vacuums everything is interlinked and related.
Also criticising someone for their work is very different from objectifying them. Once again I don’t think vogue did anything wrong with their article I’m just drawing parallels and posing questions. Lastly why is it a huge reach for me to point out what vogue did?
Well, as she explained, the differences in depth of the articles, the fact that the footballers article came with more context, with explanations, carrer and bios, makes it of a different ilk than just a gallery made of strangers who didn't consent to their pics being taken, posted and aggregated in a sexiest gallery, with no context, and displaying them as mere objects for male's arousal..
It's not comparable, the extent to wich we objectify women and it's consequences both are not comparable to the male objectification you are pointing at for the basis of your article (which i found interesting still, more so since it sparks a necessary discussion).
Not doubting your feelings on this, with the REAL exception of.
The very minute men stopped paying attention to you in some tangible way, you'd be out with friends telling them how you've lost all of your appeal. There are reasons (real reasons) you don't go out shopping to find the item you'll look your absolute worst when wearing it. That's REAL. Truth be told. You want to be attractive to people that see you. And unfortunately you can't pick & choose who that will be, or, their exact response to how you place yourself out there. it's a very big world and trying to get a gender to fit inside a box you perceive as being correct -- is just wrong.
People have to stop trying to redefine MAN & WOMAN. It's genetic and baked in. All the complaining in the world will do nothing but stifle the other group.
You're assuming that I want the attention. I don't. I am married and the only male gaze I want is from my HUSBAND, and not some male that has the balls to cat call me when I'm shopping at the grocery store.
Furthermore, I wear things that appeal to ME, not for other people. I'm what you'd call a 'geeky gamer' girl, that wears graphic tees and black jeans. So please tell me again how I am going out there trying to make myself look good for men, even my husband, when it's all about me.
So, you're suggesting that men are just primates hell bent on spreading their seed and women should just welcome it? Because it's 'genetic' and should be expected that cat calls, or sexual commentary are just going to happen, right?
You're the last of a dying breed my friend, and gender roles are not something in the here and now.Your generation's women pushed for change, mine is driving it all the way home.