--- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't see psychobabble. Can you be more specific? > > > "Objectification," for one. You really should have > > a look at the article Tazarmfume linked to: > > Ok, I finished the article. Its good. But he has said little that I > have not already thought about and to a large extent intrnalized. > My primary reaction is that he did not go far enough. He left the > issue kind of half way there. > > What I am working on, personally, is a deeper level of > de-ojectification than he appears to be contemplating. I say "de-" > because its clear to me, and he alludes to but does not fully develop > the point, that the drivers of objectification are ubiquiteous. > Obectifying others is not something I sign up for. Its not a class > that I took on an elective basis thinking "gee, i really want to learn > how to objectify women". It happend. The roots are not clear, but we > have touched on some: media, advertisng, fashion, peer dynamics.
I'd say these are *manifestations*, not roots. > What I woke up to sometime ago is that "ok, I tend to objectify women. > Probably less than a lot of guys, based on their actions and > attitudes. Still, its not a good thing. How do I get de- objectified". > > Thats an interesting journey. One that may interest you in that you > share the goal of having a world with less internally objectifiable > men (and women). I would be happy to share my experiences, diamonds > and warts. However, I sense, and I may be wrong, that you feel that > I and others are way behind, even clueless about Steinberg's > points. I think you're still not getting the distinction he's making between the "early" sense of objectification and the later, more superficial sense. Almost all the discussion here has been in terems of the later sense. If > so -- maybe thats not your view -- then it doesn't create a strong > enironment for sharing details of ones personal life, particularly > revolving issues that are pretty highly charged on several levels. > Whle I am not saying this is the case -- I am stating a conditionally > -- if you feel that anything I say on the subject is simply my > rationalization for deeper objectification and/or exploitaion of > women, then there is not much of a foundation for productive > discussion. On the otherhand, I am open for a discussion of openess, > mutual respect and authentic inquiry. I don't think--and I don't believe I ever suggested-- that there was such a motivation. I'm convinced that you and most of the other men on this forum sincerely want women to be the equals of men in every significant sense. And God bless you for that. But there's a whole level of this that you don't seem to be aware of. ------------------------ 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/
