--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Yes, I have similar thoughts. Some slice of advertising does > > objectify women, and increasingly men. As do TV, films, music, > > etc. This, per objectification theory, can and does lead to self- > > objectification -- leading to eating disorders and self-image > > issues. > > I worked for a time in Chicago with a group of friends > who were all gay -- three men, two women. One of the > many things I learned from them was how strongly gay > men (and, increasingly, straight men) are starting to > feel the same self-loathing that women have felt for > years as a result of how the archetypes of men and women > are portrayed in the media. > > The "ideal" is a body type that 10% of the population > could ever achieve, no matter how much they work out or > diet. Women who would have been considered voluptuously > beautiful three decades ago are now consider fat. And > this takes its toll on the people, both men and women, > who view these stereotypes and buy into them as the > standard of beauty. > > > And objectification is a > > form of materialism, and thus is the negation of spiritualism. > > This one I can't agree with. Materialism is NOT the > negation of spiritualism. Coming to believe that the > material is all that there is, and that spirit does > not exist within the material, means that the person > has deprived themselves of the joys of spirituality > IN materialism, but it doesn't have to be that way.
I think we may be saying the same thing. My language was perhaps imprecise or too much shorthand. Its a matter of balance, or "weightings". A strict materialist is 100% material, and denyes spirit. That is a way parallels a strict objectifier -- they just see T&A, not the personality, brain, heart or humor. Both views are "outward" directive (though we are talking about something dimentionless and directionless, no real "inner" and "outer". Its more an analogy. Given that qualifier, a spirituality, in a broad sense, is in direction of "inner values", mind, heart and "spirit". > > > Focussing on the surface values instead of inner values. > > I understand the point you're making, but just feel > the need to point out once again that the "inner > values" ARE on the surface as well. It's not like > the absolute isn't omnipresent. *Anything* that > convinces us it's not present, on either "surface" > or on some "inner" level, is a distraction from > reality. I think we are saying the same thing. Let me apologize for the non-spiritual aptness of my mother tongue of english. :) > > And leads to a focus on wealth and material accumulation in > > an out of balance way, relative to inner growth. > > "Out of balance" is just rhe right tone. Things > are *definitely* out of balance on this rock. Yes, as "spiritual maturity" (ok, throw rocks at that phrasae too :) ), more and more is just "in here". > > And objectification can contribute to identification in an outer > > direction instead of an inner direction. Though as some have > > pointed out, spiritual "growth" counters objectification -- a > > stick through air phenomenon. > > > > Objectification is pervasive for most. So to say strip clubs cause > > objectification is absurd. They may contribute, in a marginal way, > > to objectification for some... > > I'd say rather that it *reinforces* a tendency to objectify > that is already present. > > > ...and help deconstruct it for others -- myself included. But > > culture -- media/art/adverting/fashion/cosmetics > > are far strong forces acting on a identifiaction-prone person. And > > they can de-create it -- if pointed in the right direction. As can > > spiritual practices. > > A few years ago there was a fascinating article in Tricycle > about Advertising and Buddhism. Very well written, it > pointed out that the whole *purpose* of advertising was > to create desire, desire strong enough that the target > of the advertising feels he or she has to act upon it. > Needless to say, this is rather counterproductive to the > Buddhist notion of getting beyond having to act on one's > desires. > > > And I agree Unc. To rally against SCs more so than Vogue as a > > contributor to objetification is misguided -- or due to imbalanced > > analysis -- which is often embedded in conventional wisdom. > > The more this subject is discussed here, the more I'm > starting to feel that the thing that a lot of people in > the world (not necessarily those who have been speaking > on this forum) feel is "wrong" with strip clubs is that > they allow men to do in a safe, harmless, and *guiltless* > way what the detractors want them to feel guilty about. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
