From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 08/24/02-11:28:54 PM Z
On Sat, 24 Aug 2002, sstoney wrote:
> Judy, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that there is somehow a
> causal relationship between the existence of erotic images of women in our
> society, and the difficulty women have reaching high levels of power (for
> example, making partner in a law firm when your boobs are sagging). I
> understand this argument: the essence of it is that when women are seen
> everywhere in the media as sex objects, it makes it difficult to see them any
> other way.
>
> But this argument has some weaknesses. First, if you are saying that it is
> mainly young women who are seen as sex objects, but not middle aged or older
> women, then it should be no problem for middle aged or older women to be taken
> seriously at work. The problem would exist mainly for younger women. So, the
> argument fails logically there.
Firstly, the woman has lost the young years when men were building power,
which doesn't arrive in a moment. Secondly, the pervasive image of
eroticized woman makes the older non-eroticized woman drab, a non-person,
doubly powerless.
And not tolerated. What female movie star keeps a career after, say, 40?
Those who do are so exceptional they're known for that. What male movie
star is younger than 40? Oh I know, a few, but 40 is not old and the male
stars keep getting the girls into their 70s, even wimpy ugly guys like
Woody Allen. Same for news anchors... bunch of jowly old guys. How many
jowly old women?
> Also, if the presence of erotically charged imagery were the cause of
> oppression
> of women--a principle or main or determining cause--it is hard to explain the
> fact that the regimes in the world that are the most oppressive to women--for
> example the late, unlamented Taliban regime--also ban erotic imagery of all
> kinds. In fact they also ban even non-erotic images of women, or indeed even
> the sight of a woman’s face in real life.
I'm talking western civilisation, at this moment. And I certainly never
said erotically charged imagery causes oppression. It could even yield a
certain power. My point was about *equality*, as in "making partner"-- not
about not being allowed out of the house.
> Again, if there were a causal relationship between erotic imagery of persons
> and
> their oppression in that society, it would be impossible to account for the
> fact
> that the ancient Greeks idealized and eroticized the male body, almost to the
> exclusion of the nude female body, yet men in ancient Greece could hardly be
> said to have been powerless!
Again, "oppression" is your word, not mine. The Greek culture was so
different from ours in any event that few analogies would hold, but I
daresay some of those pretty boy bodies in the sculptures were relatively
powerless.
> The logical fallacy at work in the theory that erotic portrayals of women in
> the media cause the oppression of women is the fallacy of thinking that
> because
> two things exist in the same society at the same time, that one must be
> causing
> the other.
Shannon, again, I am NOT talking "oppression," which is entirely your
construction. And nothing in any culture is caused by one thing only...
there's always the overlay of multiple determinants, and the whole range
of nature and nurture. Also culture.
> While it is offensive when men sexualize women in the workplace to the
> exclusion
> of seeing them as competent workers or to the point that it compromises their
> dignity, it does not follow that it is offensive for men and women to enjoy
> erotic portrayals of the human body in art or the media. In fact, I heard
> about
> a study that showed that if men look at women’s breasts for fifteen minutes a
> day, it prolongs their life as much as if they jogged for thirty minutes a
> day!
And I heard about a study that showed that doctors who liked exercise
found that exercise helped heart attack victims, and those who didn't
found it didn't.
> It lowers their blood pressure and in general makes them healthier. So, there
> is are compelling public health reasons for looking at Charis sprawled in the
> sand.
You're just like Bill Jay -- using the term "erotic portrayals of the
human body" to mean naked ladies. And let's say it IS good for the man,
is it equally beneficial to the woman? My point is that it is not... my
entire point.
Not that there's anything wrong with erotic for either sex per se, but
we're in a period when the society says women should be equal, and that
they're somehow responsible if they're not. I'm saying that various
cultural impediments ought to be addressed.
J.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:02:50 AM Z CST