Skip to main content

Objecting to objectifying

I was just watching the F1 Belgian Grand Prix qualifying, and was struck by a couple of sentences which occurred in the space of about 10 minutes. On a (male) racing driver, by a man: "apart from being tall dark and handsome, what do we know about Manor's new driver?" On David Coulthard, by a woman, "he's completely gorgeous". No similar comments on females were made.

I have no problem with this, but I wonder how feminists would have reacted if the genders of the drivers were reversed? I could imagine them using this as further "proof" that society is inherently sexist, is objectifying women, and that the value of a female is still tied to her appearance.

If you look at glossy magazines and calendars, they are full of well toned topless men. A Google search for "sexy male calendar" yields more hits than a similar search for "sexy female calendar." I don't care, but I do mind feminists claiming that only females are objectified, or that they are objectified more. You can cherry-pick to show any angle you like.

The worst egress in the 2016 Olympics was apparently when the women's judo final was described as a cat fight. Ok, I think that wasn't great as it's not good to offend anyone. But guess what? Only male cats fight.

I objectify men and women all the time. Although I struck up a really interesting conversation with a US taxi driver recently, generally I tend to regard people as a physical unit designed to perform some function. I'm usually not interested in where the barber is going on holiday, or the opinions of the coach driver or checkout person in Sainsbury's. I don't mind if they are a computer, robot, man or woman, android or androgynous. Similarly I might be attracted to someone on the TV without knowing their personality, as apparently teenage girls do all the time.

Basically, objectification is normal and healthy, cuts both ways, and is another one of these social justice words that should be thrown in the bin.

Edited to add: Things were not always this balanced. The phrase "it's a man's world" was certainly true 30 years ago, but times have changed a lot.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking the Article 50 Impasse

Andrew Tyrie overestimates the UK's control over when the UK government can invoke Article 50. As with much of the Brexit debate, hope and aspiration trump cold hard reality. The next few months will see a lot of work by the UK government setting up new departments and policy positions relating to the triggering of Article 50 and Britain's exit from the EU. This is a sensible and necessary delay. However this article by The Independent makes the case that the UK should delay invoking Article 50 until we establish an informal agreement with the EU on our exit terms. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-andrew-tyrie-must-manage-unrealistic-expectations-warns-tory-mp-a7220681.html This is very desirable from the UK's perspective, but flatly contradicts statements by the EU (including direct statements by Jean-Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk and Cecilia Malmström, as well as official EU policy) that no talks can happen prior to invoking Article 50
3 comments
Read more

Can information theory prove the existence of God?

I recently came across this website by Perry Marshall, which makes a really interesting proof of the existence of God. The argument is basically that DNA constitutes information (a code), yet all information that we know of is the product of a mind. Randomness cannot create information. Therefore, God exists. Lovely argument. Now let's pick some holes. 1) My first observation is that this argument is almost exactly the same as entropy. The argument is that DNA is a low entropy state. Yet randomness always increases entropy. Therefore DNA cannot be the product of random processes, therefore it must be the work of God (or Maxwell's Demon). However this argument is invalid because localised decreases in entropy are perfectly possible, and expected, even though the entropy of the system as a whole increases. Considering that the site claims to make use of information theory, it presumably is aware of information entropy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy It fo
3 comments
Read more

Simulation independence

I recently came across Nick Boström's article about the simulation argument , which goes that there is a non-zero chance that we are actually simulated individuals, and not actually made of carbon at all. It was spun out of The Matrix series of movies, though is a recurring theme right from Descartes and the Brain in a Vat. Key to this idea is the argument of substrate independence , that is, carbon-based cells are not the only possible way of conjuring consciousness. Surely it isn't the carbon-based molecules per se that cause consciousness, but rather their configuration, and the kinds of computation (if that's the right word) being performed. Surely any "computer program" that reproduces the workings of the brain sufficiently well would suffice, since its operation and outputs would be essentially identical to the biological brain. The simulation argument goes that we are not all that far from achieving that level of computation, so therefore there may wel
3 comments
Read more