Marnie, You and I are of about the same 'vintage', and advocates of women's rights. I supported my wife and other women as they struggled thru the '70's. My daughter has just turned 21 and is a great result, more ambitious & accomplished than her brothers and will go farther too!
I see fashion as a culprit now... Too much, "Wow - look at me, I'm like Britany Spears." My 16 year old neice doesn't think she is selling her sexuality, but that what it amounts to. And this said, I still like looking at female nudes, even provocative ones. Me and Jimmy Carter occasionally have a little lust in our hearts. Regards, Bob S. On 11/26/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In a message dated 11/26/2005 5:28:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I think the term "objectifying women" has lost its literal meaning. In > our PC world it has come to mean depicting women in a way that is > blatantly sexual. However, that being said, I find that a difficult > line to draw. Human beings are inherently sexual. Its part of the > package. I don't know what turns an artful nude into a sex object. > Props? A smile? The display of specific areas of the body? > Paul > ========== > To me the term means turning women into just body parts. That's the basic > feminist meaning. JUST body parts. No humanity, no individuality, no > personality, > no flaws, no reality, etc. Mainly to sell products. This is the way it used > when originally protested by women. Madison Avenue. Sexy women on leaning cars > in TV commercials to sell cars when actually the woman leaning on the car had > nothing to do with the car. So it's not done as much anymore. For instance, in > car commercials now, it's mainly the car -- how fast it can go, the safety > features, the lines, etc. I do remember the way it was before though. > > So it doesn't mean just sexual, per se, although that is part of it. And men > can be objectified too, but it's not done as often. However, fashion magazines > still do it, for both genders. Yes, as a term, it also includes pornography. > But that is a whole other issue. > > So basically it means turning a subject into an object. And with live > subjects, human beings, turning them into just parts, lesser than the whole. > Losing > their... what is listed above... humanity, personality, individuality, etc., > and aliveness To be admired as just objects -- not admired for their > uniqueness, > but their commonality. > > Oh, well, I knew when I said it that I would get some reactions. And yes, the > line is difficult to draw sometimes. > > But I still felt a need to say it -- those part of my feminist stripes have > not changed, although I am on a list that is 95-99% male. However, if most of > the women on the list react similarly to a photograph that tells you something > right there. > > Marnie aka Doe :-) > >
