Shared publicly  - 
 
I've just discovered Girl Writes What, and she's awesome.
4
Hadrian Micciche's profile photoMark Sol Groisman's profile photoChris Jenkins's profile photoJonny Vincent's profile photo
12 comments
 
Women are objectified as sex objects. Men are objectified as success objects. Being objectified as a sex object is a step up.
 
I definitely think she simplifies her argument, and perhaps over-simplifies it in some places, but I appreciate her evolutionary biology based outlook. In ever video I saw, she was quick to reference science, which makes my inner nerd very happy.
 
Can you hear this? This is a sound of me not saying a damn thing about any of this. Not a word about objectifying based on gender. Not a word about feminism. Not a word about things gender-specific, especially about the way we, the people, treat each other based on gender.
Screw all that, ok? I am going to sit over here with my dogs, and I will quietly chuckle as "preference" is given to better looking specimens with thicker wallets and nicer cars, by (shock and awe) other better looking specimens with enough wit to wrangle a preferred specimen, while both are acting in a gender-specific manner ascribed to them by society and implanted into their heads by parents/peers/etc.
Dogs, you see, are far nicer and far more honest. They require no debate, they require no egg-shell walking... they just require unconditional affection, food, belly-rubbings, frequent walks and cookies. Funny bit about that "unconditional affection" - I thought that "love" is just that. Derpalicious that!
thanks
a man.

P.S. My dog just farted and licked my face! I love it.
 
I think she's trying to point out the contradiction of following biological imperatives, and then castigating the other gender for following their own. It's the lack of self awareness that is the issue.
 
I agree; as the father of a 15 year old girl, I raise her to be a strong, independent feminist. GWW is specifically referencing a core argument I've heard recently that I also have a hard time resolving without cognitive dissonance:

"I should be able to be completely naked without men staring at me in a sexual manner."

Given that visual stimulation and biological pattern recognition are core functions of human biology, programmed by a million years of evolution, to expect men to not "leer" when dressing provocatively is asking them quite literally to be inhuman.

As men, we WILL look. It is an internal compulsion that requires massive amounts of personal discipline to bring under control; I take it as a personal accomplishment that I notice every single time I instinctively check out an attractive woman, and quickly find something else to occupy my eyeballs. I recognize that it may feel invasive, and as a matter of social politesse, attempt to rectify that behavior. However, that's very much against very primal human functions.

Additionally, there IS a double standard in play, in that quite frequently, women are intentionally dressing to draw attention; there wouldn't be guides on "dressing sexy" if not. The effect is generally targeted, and it's only when untargeted responses are received that some women become offended.

It's these specific instances she's calling out; pointing out the hypocrisy of the position, and the untenable request that men suppress a biological instinct that is hundreds of thousands of years ingrained.
 
Get thee to a nudist colony.
"I should be able to be completely naked without men staring at me in a sexual manner." Well, there is a place for that...
 
laughing That's awesome! And also, kind of the point. Our biology tells us to look; it's not intended to be an invasion. As long as we're checking our monkey instincts regarding mating, and tempering them with social graces, no harm, no foul.
 
"But the female response too is biologically driven, too! "

:D Indeed it is. And not just a common awareness of one another, but also an honest awareness of ourselves.
 
"If women are still doing this for reasons of biology and to seek an acceptable mate, then we are still living in what is a biologically-driven society."
I have about 6,000,000,000 proofs that shagging still takes place, and I'd safely say that good old fashioned shagging preceded with much of flirting, preceded with much of glancing, and preceded with much of that objectifying (much disliked by feminists), still takes place. It (the shagging) is frequently results in screaming little pests (commonly known as Babies). Rape cannot be responsible for all of them. Accidental contamination? "I sneezed really hard from across the cave" kinda deal?
12year olds are creeped out by men looking at them?
Look, two things. A) What man would look at 12yr olds? B) That 12yr olds parents are doing what about that?

Rating members of opposite sex on some three level scale becomes legal in the future.
"I know I am only seventeen, but I am already 75-80-60!"
(for uninitiated, thats 75 on Sexy, 80 on Healthy, and 60 Rich)
(smart doesn't count, and that's the only one both genders have agreed on millenia ago, otherwise we would not be talking about gender-related splatter)
 
Well, +Gina Duarte, now that you've edited... :D

I've read a bit about Objectification Theory, and it's my opinion that while certain functions of objectification are social constructs (media driven beauty models, for example), the underlying foundation is human pattern recognition behavior. Studies such as this:

http://www.sanchezlab.com/pdfs/FredricksonRoberts.pdf

...tend to gloss over any biological drivers for this behavior, while focusing on social impact, and placing the onus on men to correct this.

GWW brings up several of the evolutionary reasons why this behavior occurs. There are extensive underlying cognitive functions which exist solely to determine how appropriate a mate is. Here's a better explanation of those mechanisms than I could provide:

http://www.unm.edu/~gfmiller/new_papers2/miller%201998%20matecognitive.pdf

While we can positively condition social behavior (dating rituals as opposed to aggressive displays of social dominance and physical aggression), we can't reprogram base biological functions.
 
Good to know. I was sent this link from YouTube, so I'll check that out.
 
+Chris Jenkins said "Given that visual stimulation and biological pattern recognition are core functions of human biology, programmed by a million years of evolution, to expect men to not "leer" when dressing provocatively is asking them quite literally to be inhuman." 

We wear clothes less for women to undress to impress as for men to dress to prevent them from inspiring drool. Women are the leering, sex-obsessed ones. Oh you didn't know that? You don't know it now, but you'll know it's true one day and you'll whisper a thank you then. 

You would have said the same thing about men who leered at Puritan women's ankles.
Add a comment...