Media and the Objectification of Women
I want to hear your thoughts on the morality of objectifying women in the media.
I am playing through my first session of the Witcher 3. It is supposed to be a "realistic" medieval-era dark fantasy. This means there is blood, gore, obscenities, political intrigue, ethical problems, and yes, sex.
Sex appears in multiple ways. Since its goal is to be realistic, I can understand why prostitutes are in the cities, or why women typically have an "inferior" role in politics. That's what actually happened in the past: there were prostitutes in medieval cities, and women typically did not hold as much political power as men.
However there are obvious (and sometimes tropish cliche) moments in which sex is used as eye-candy. The protagonist will have sex with one of his many sexually appealing sorceress "friends", and no nudity will be shown for the male protagonist but much nudity will be shown by the female characters. There's a scene where a female semi-protagonist takes a bath, for no real reason apart for showing off her assets. This same character wears decent clothing but with an additional opening in her shirt to reveal her bra and side boob, for no apparent reason apart from eye-candy. Almost all of the females in the game wear these utterly impractical and unrealistic clothing that objectifies them.
On the other hand, Witcher 3 does well by giving women roles in the story, good background, strong abilities, etc. Women are shown to be capable and willing agents in themselves.
But surely these positive qualities can't just "nullify" the objectifying quality of women in the game?
So here are some questions:
1.) Am I making a mistake by purchasing a form of media that objectifies women?
2.) Should the objectification of women be outlawed?
3.) Is this objectification the result of the oft-quoted "Patriarchy"?
4.) Are women alright with this objectification, and does this have any importance to the debate?
My own answers:
1.) I'm not sure. On one hand, by buying the video game, I am indirectly supporting a media establishment that obviously objectifies women in some way to garner a profit. My purchase then could be said to be indirectly supporting the objectification of women, period, and thus supporting a meme that harms women. However, had I not purchased the game, this likely would not have affected anything substantially, because of my minor role as well as the fact that abstaining from purchase doesn't tell the developers why you abstained.
2.) I don't think it should be outlawed. But I think it should be limited to media that one pays for. "Free" objectification of women via advertisements in the public sphere should be limited. But if one pays for something that objectifies women, then it is alright, so long as this objectification doesn't leave the private sphere and influence behavior in the public sphere. For example, people are going to masturbate to porn, no matter what their orientation is. If porn did not exist, they would find a new method of releasing the tension. If porn objectifies women, then dildos objectify men. If we can all come to an agreement that sex has an inherent "domination" and "subjugation" nature, no matter how intimate, then we can move on.
The problem, though, is that men and women tend to go about their sexual interests in different ways. Men tend to judge things based on appearance, while women tend to not put as much emphasis on appearance. Thus men's sexuality is inherently objectifying in some sense. It is thus problematic to expect women to be content with the "equalizing" force of objectifying men, since they tend to not care as much about that.
3.) No answer.
4.) Not qualified to answer.
Discuss.
I am playing through my first session of the Witcher 3. It is supposed to be a "realistic" medieval-era dark fantasy. This means there is blood, gore, obscenities, political intrigue, ethical problems, and yes, sex.
Sex appears in multiple ways. Since its goal is to be realistic, I can understand why prostitutes are in the cities, or why women typically have an "inferior" role in politics. That's what actually happened in the past: there were prostitutes in medieval cities, and women typically did not hold as much political power as men.
However there are obvious (and sometimes tropish cliche) moments in which sex is used as eye-candy. The protagonist will have sex with one of his many sexually appealing sorceress "friends", and no nudity will be shown for the male protagonist but much nudity will be shown by the female characters. There's a scene where a female semi-protagonist takes a bath, for no real reason apart for showing off her assets. This same character wears decent clothing but with an additional opening in her shirt to reveal her bra and side boob, for no apparent reason apart from eye-candy. Almost all of the females in the game wear these utterly impractical and unrealistic clothing that objectifies them.
On the other hand, Witcher 3 does well by giving women roles in the story, good background, strong abilities, etc. Women are shown to be capable and willing agents in themselves.
But surely these positive qualities can't just "nullify" the objectifying quality of women in the game?
So here are some questions:
1.) Am I making a mistake by purchasing a form of media that objectifies women?
2.) Should the objectification of women be outlawed?
3.) Is this objectification the result of the oft-quoted "Patriarchy"?
4.) Are women alright with this objectification, and does this have any importance to the debate?
My own answers:
1.) I'm not sure. On one hand, by buying the video game, I am indirectly supporting a media establishment that obviously objectifies women in some way to garner a profit. My purchase then could be said to be indirectly supporting the objectification of women, period, and thus supporting a meme that harms women. However, had I not purchased the game, this likely would not have affected anything substantially, because of my minor role as well as the fact that abstaining from purchase doesn't tell the developers why you abstained.
2.) I don't think it should be outlawed. But I think it should be limited to media that one pays for. "Free" objectification of women via advertisements in the public sphere should be limited. But if one pays for something that objectifies women, then it is alright, so long as this objectification doesn't leave the private sphere and influence behavior in the public sphere. For example, people are going to masturbate to porn, no matter what their orientation is. If porn did not exist, they would find a new method of releasing the tension. If porn objectifies women, then dildos objectify men. If we can all come to an agreement that sex has an inherent "domination" and "subjugation" nature, no matter how intimate, then we can move on.
The problem, though, is that men and women tend to go about their sexual interests in different ways. Men tend to judge things based on appearance, while women tend to not put as much emphasis on appearance. Thus men's sexuality is inherently objectifying in some sense. It is thus problematic to expect women to be content with the "equalizing" force of objectifying men, since they tend to not care as much about that.
3.) No answer.
4.) Not qualified to answer.
Discuss.
Comments (64)
It seems a far bigger problem to me to see a focus on sexual appeal as a problem--and that's what tends to happen. Any focus on sex/sex appeal/sexual attactiveness/etc. is seen as "objectification" (and usually as "misogyny" etc.) It's disheartening how people let rhetoric like that take hold so that it winds up more or less becomes unquestioned and simply accepted as a norm for an entire generation, to an extent where it even starts influencing the opinions of other generations.
Quoting darthbarracuda
You're making a mistake to accept the rhetoric you're accepting so that you'd parse this as objectification and/or as problematic.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Holy moly no. No expression should be outlawed.
Quoting darthbarracuda
It's difficult to say what the rhetoric is the result of, because surely it's the result of many different factors. One of those factors seems to be people who are uncomfortable with sexuality, uncomfortable with their own bodies, their appearance, etc.
Quoting darthbarracuda
I know plenty of women who don't buy into the rhetoric about "objectification."
I think it has more to do with women being unequal or "sex objects" than it has to do with sexuality in general. I'm all for making sexuality a common aspect of the public sphere. But I think there might be some issues with putting sexuality where it isn't needed, i.e. women being used to garner profits.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Agreed, only they should be limited to the private spheres, and the private sphere should not affect the public sphere.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Just playing devil's advocate here, the feminist would argue that these women don't know what's good for them. Indeed a lot of feminism seems to revolve around this aesthetic of the female nature and assuming every other female also wants to be this way. When in fact some females are okay with objectification. Feminists chalk this up to be the result of the Patriarchy, and it is the Patriarchy that is not allowing women to think for themselves.
Me, I don't watch violent sports where people get paid to kill and cripple each other and I refuse to support any number of extremes where money is obviously doing all the driving, but that's a personal choice.
I don't think women being viewed as sex objects makes is necessarily a bad thing. That is a benefit of being sexually attractive in both genders. It gives people power to be viewed as "objects" so I don't really see what the problem is with "objectification" anyway.
What do you see as the difference between "sex object" and a focus on sex/sex appeal/sexual attactiveness/etc.?
Quoting darthbarracuda
I'm not in favor of any speech laws period.Quoting darthbarracuda
Yeah, but "I know what's good for you better than you do" and "You can't think for yourselves" are two things that are completely untenable.
Also, sexuality isn't needed or not needed in any particular milieu. It's just a matter of what people are interested in focusing on in different contexts.
Yeah, the whole premise of (as a problem) it is ridiculous. There's so much crappy theorizing supporting it.
I also like how folks often say that objectification is a source for eating disorders and the like, while meanwhile you get people on the rabid anti-objectification side who look like, and who abuse their bodies like Andrea Dworkin. You're a lot better off worrying about your physical appearance, dieting and working out etc. in order to work on your appearance, than you are letting yourself go like Dworkin did.
Re Dworkin, I don't know if she was raped or molested when she was younger, but she obviously never got the counseling she needed. Her husband--she was married to another radical feminist, though both of them were explicitly gay--said that she would sleep with a knife beside her for a persistent fear of someone breaking in and attacking/raping her.
Granted that the way in which a person or group is publicly portrayed in media can be unfair or misleading. But unfair or misleading portrayals neither diminish nor objectify anything literally.
Only social constructionists, or the like, would believe such nonsense; because for them there is no truth beyond our public interaction with words or pictures. As if injustice against women would be caused by how they're portrayed in public.
But to show a breast, for instance, is a way to identify a portrayed person as a woman, like wide shoulders can identify men. Neither is thereby diminished into an object.
Porn is public, more now than ever before. Previous attempts to limit its presence are motivated by sex being considered taboo, not primarily by how women are portrayed (those attempts didnt 'exclude female friendly porn).
An equal amount--still a small fraction, though more than above--features women in domineering roles, with men in subservient or "degrading" roles.
Of course, there's also lesbian dominatrix, bondage etc. porn, where women are in both roles.
But the vast majority of porn isn't master/slave, bondage etc. stuff.
Not exactly. It's true that many women agree and participate in Patriarchy, but this is not surprising given the culture they are raised in and that it is sometimes beneficial for them to engage in this culture. Following a surrounding culture can get people things whichcannot obtained any other way.
The problem is this has nothing to do with objectification. Objectification is a question of thoughts and actions which ignore a person's agency and reduce them to a tool for achieving another's desire. It's almost impossible to objectify oneself. Short of asserting other people can do whatever they want with you, that you are only there to be used for their desire, one does not objectify themselves.
In this context, objectification is gravely misunderstood. Many think it is the question of the mere presence of a body, the women showing skin or dressing up to look "nice" the stripper showing a naked body to others or someone choosing to let the public observe their sexual behaviour. It's not. The objectification comes from other in these instances. Those who cannot not think beyond the idea that the person in front of them is a tool for their desire.
With respect to the topic of this thread, objectification is an action of others.
The stripper doesn't objectify herself by stripping. People watching might do that. Others might record her and do that, either by not having consent to do so and/or by presenting the recorded material the a culture of objectification. It is others who consider her only an object for sexual consumption. Their actions are the issue, not her naked body or that people are feeling sexual desire.
To say: "but she objectified herself. She wanted me to reduce her to a sexual object" is nothing more than a denial of responsibility and ethical culpability. The objectifier's act is masqueraded as the existence of the woman, to make the action of the objectifier invisible.
It's actually that very idea that blocks understanding objectification. In thinking of obtaining sex as a question of "domination" and "subjugation," one considers it an act of power in which the other person has no role. Everyone is seeking to possess everyone else and not giving the thoughts and desires of other people every respect.
Sex is not a question of inherent domination and subjugation. Ethically, it is a question of choices and respect. One has sex when someone else wants to, not just when they want to. A question not of dominance and subservience, but of sharing.
I think that most feel ripped off though unless they take out more than they put in. Equivalent exchange doesn't seem as good as getting more than everyone else -- thing is, that if we all take out more than we put in, then things start getting shitty pretty fast.
The worst thing about porn I think, is that people learn sex from there, and it's a really nasty teacher.
He's not specifically talking about slave/bondage stuff though. The point is about the subservient way women are presented in most porn, where they are just a body to be used for male desire In this respect, some slave/bondage porn is actually better than a whole lot of mainstream stuff. What's at stake here is not who's said to be in charge, but rather whether an instance of porn considers the viewpoint and desires of the women involved.
So clearly hardcore porn is acceptable in liberated western society. The people involved get paid - and a business contract makes pretty much anything OK under that norm. But also it is not acceptable to then enjoy your purchased hardcore porn in a public setting. You don't sit there on the train or with your kids on the couch watching it, unless you want to be classified as a sicko.
So as an activity, it has a highly negotiated status. It is a legitimate private pastime. Until society decides the rules of decorum need to be changed again.
The objectification of woman debate is then about the public realm end of this public~private negotiation.
Can women be treated as porn objects if they don't get properly paid in some fashion? Is it a public realm problem if men are being encouraged to think of women generally in this socially limiting fashion? Are the cliches of fantasy gamers eroding a valuable distinction hardwon by social justice movements of the last century, or instead are they post-modern enough to wear their sleaze lightly and self-consciously?
One can have all sorts of views about what is in the end the healthiest balance between the social and private sphere. But it begins with a recognition that both are legitimate interests. And then that the really difficult moral question becomes "well, what is the ultimate goal here?".
What kind of society does modern society want to be?
But that point is false, at least in any sense that could be correlated with anything objective.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
If you were to subjectively interpret porn that way for some reason, how in the world wouldn't you interpret it just as much that men are just a body to be used for female desire? (etc. for whatever the gender composition of the porn in question happens to be--a very large amount of porn is lesbian, and then there is a significant amount of male homosexual porn, porn with more than two people having sex together, porn involving trans genders, etc.)
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
How would you interpret film in general to either consider or not consider the viewpoint and desires of any character?
When people make comments like yours, by the way, it's extremely difficult to imagine that you watch much porn or that you watch a wide variety of porn.
Just as a notice to you all, I've played The Witcher 3 (TW3) for about 100 hours, so take that admission however you like, :-*
Quoting darthbarracuda
This particular question appears to stem from some worry that you're partaking in something you're not necessarily wanting to. In principle, are you getting on the media's hype train about the bad, bad, bad objectification of women in video games simply by playing said video games? I wouldn't say so, just as I wouldn't see you as indulging in some sick, perverted indulgence by viewing a Baroque painting that objectifies the sensual, heavenly motifs of a noblewoman emulating Venus or Mary. Yes, she's nearly nude, is of luminescent skin, is matronly yet not obese, but that's okay. Objectification need not always be negative. Sometimes the norm is beautiful, in at least some sense. That is, the suggestion of someone being in part an object quite distinctly relates to what is whole and unshakable in that person, such as their character. And I don't find that as bad. Although, perhaps I'm just not wanting to fully commit to modern feminists' definitions of objectification and what that word entails.
Should the objectification of men be outlawed as well? TW3, more than in any other serious RPG that I've played, objectifies men more than women. The amount of aloof and downright morally bankrupt men in TW3 far exceeds women of equal measure, at least in my play-through. I'm reminded of the village guards (always male) farting and making silly noises, laughing as though pigs, often sleeping lazily on the job, and generally not being very intelligent or upstanding. Now, I suppose some modern feminists would interject and say, "all men are like this, so CDPR is just presenting the facts!" but if that's the case, then you can see the hypocrisy from a mile out. If women are presented as 'peasantly' as their husbands and brothers, there can only be seen a kind of equality in that. And so, the reality is that these "feminists" really only want men to always be categorized as brutish and obtuse, and for women not to be.
Well, considering again the game that underpins your questioning, the fact that I can let an objectively manly woman rule Skellige, let Ciri rule damn-near half the world as an Empress, let the various female witches and mages control philosophy and the sciences, let a woman (like Yen) dictate my own life after the conclusion of the story (me being Geralt, of course), strikes me as a game presenting a world anything but ruled by some ingrained "patriarchy" when indeed a matriarchy is more likely in most situations.
Seeing as I am so clearly a privileged white male living in secular America, I certainly wouldn't dare speak on behalf of women here, as you also wisely admit :P
Plus, Momma Moliere might hit me with a book, which would be a bad introducing of myself O:)
~
I'll add, though, that I find TW3 to be both the best game I've ever played, but also one of the best stories I've had the privilege of living. I was really blown away when after the game came out that there were people who not only mildly disliked the game, but were vehemently upset about the contents of so well-crafted a work of art, really.
I also think that a few people forget that you can essentially do what you want in the game. My play-through of TW3 was one where I consciously went about my play with celibacy in mind, respect for everyone that deserved such respect, only doing this or that when I needed to - I didn't have to screw everything in sight. That you can, though, creates a more real and believable world, because like our own, a great many people do play themselves in this reality like a vindictive, selfish Geralt. That CDPR gives us the option, the choice, with whether or not we want to be "non-patriarchal" or "objectifying" should be reason enough for widespread praise, not condemnation, from certain people. That I can live Geralt's life just as I try and live my own is a special thing, especially in a video game. This relation connects to other forms of art as well, where I often very much "favorite" a certain character in a book, or even in a painting, for their similarity with myself. So, yes, there may be a great many genuinely misogynistic players that go about their time in TW3 just as they would in their own lives, but there are those like me who, on the other hand, do the same in a more respectful and loving way, too.
Indeed. That's why those people who drafted libel laws are all "social constructionists".
Really? Or is that just postmodern "irony"?
A moral mistake? No. Presuming pornography is not inherently immoral, the only mistake you could potentially make is having purchased a game which does not cater to your sexual orientation.
2.) Should the objectification of women be outlawed?
Yes and we should incarcerate Beyoncé for being the incorrigible sex pirate that she is (she pilfers the female figure). Obviously, no, we should not outlaw Beyoncé.
3.) Is this objectification the result of the oft-quoted "Patriarchy"?
If it's fair to say that scantly clad women in The Witcher 3 is due to "patriarchy" then it must also be fair to say that dildos and vibrators are a direct result of "matriarchy". So, no.
4.) Are women alright with this objectification, and does this have any importance to the debate?
Some women are, some women aren't, but the outcome of the debate should not depend on the genitalia of whomever gives the first or final nod or head-shake.
The issue can be otherwise phrased like this: If a woman wants to objectify herself for profit, is it alright for another person to forbid and prevent her from doing so (up to and including incarceration) because they don't want her to be able to do so or think it is wrong?
If a man creates a fictional woman, and then sexually objectifies it, is it O.K for other people to forbid and obstruct him from doing so? If so, on what grounds? The fictional person is being exploited? The fictional genitalia resembles the genetalia of some real women, thereby giving them proprietary rights over the female form?
I think not.
P.S. See: Sex-positive and sex-negative feminism. (think: free love vs the temperance movement)
No digital character suffered in making or playing Witcher 3.
The claim that the game is a "realistic" medieval-era dark fantasy" is absurd. It most assuredly is not realistic. Want realistic? Go to the hardware store, buy a pitchfork, and then kill somebody with it. Then you will have had a somewhat realistic medieval experience. [This suggestion is void where prohibited by law; the suggested action may result in adverse consequences. Severe penalties may apply.]
Quoting darthbarracuda
Your mistake is thinking you can offend a digital female character in a game.
Quoting darthbarracuda
I say NO. First, because it isn't clear to me what does and does not constitutes objectification. Second, whatever objectification is, it is first a thought and I am not in favor of outlawing thoughts.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Patriarchy is one of several bogeymen lurking with the intent under feminists' beds. Objectification is another one. How many bogeymen can lurk with the intent under a narrow, single bed?
Quoting darthbarracuda
a) Nobody knows what women want, and b) none whatsoever.
We will presume that the sex tape viewers will entertain all sorts of lewd and lascivious thoughts about the dramatis personae appearing in your esteemed production. Their thoughts will affect neither the characters appearing in the sex tape, nor the actual artistes who performed the various sex acts. All the patriarchal objectification in the world will have zero effect.
If a man finishes your excellent sex tape, feels unsatisfied, and leaves his apartment and pounces on the first woman he meets, jerking off all over her face right in front of a Walmart, he will have lots of criminal legal problems to deal with. Patriarchal objectification will be the least of his worries. Had he gone into a Starbuck coffee shot, bought a latte, and mentally stripped, fondled, and screwed silly all of the females in the joint, he would be guilty of nothing more than patriarchal objectification IF, AND ONLY IF the Feminine Protection League could prove exactly what he was thinking.
A lot of games present women in objectified roles? Sure, you can look at the statistics and conclude that there is a problem in there somewhere, but you cannot blame anyone in particular for it. You can't blame anyone who chose to make a game which happens to have women in objectified roles, and you can't blame anyone for playing one. The problem is too elusive for you to be able to determine whether it's actually happening in any particular instance or not, as is the chain of causation which supposedly leads to ethically relevant real-world consequences.
We can't know whether someone didn't hire a person because of their ethnicity or for some other reason. We can't know whether the shallow and sexualized female character someone wrote is depiction or endorsement. Making it into an ethical question for public debate is a moot point because only the person involved can know. Now, as I said I do find the issues interesting and worth of attention, but pointing fingers is usually pointless because almost everyone has plausible deniability.
No "postmodern irony" (?), just the logical conclusion of an argument using your premise:
(1) Only "social constructionists" believe that there could be harm from how someone is portrayed in public;
(2) Those who drafted libel laws clearly thought that some harm originated from how someone is portrayed in public;
(C) Therefore, those who drafted libel laws are "social constructionists".
The argument is valid. If you deny the conclusion, you must deny either (1) or (2). I think (2) is obvious. What about you? Do you accept (C), or do you reject (1), (2), or both?
Human characters in a game, a novel, or a film are not representations of all humanity or an entire sex. Yes, if they are human characters they have to have some human characterizations, otherwise they would be aliens of some sort, but by no means are they representations of humankind. The plot has to make "human sense" or it might not seem like a plot at all.
There is always a danger of players, readers, or viewers taking the artifices of fiction literally. Young children who watch a horror movie may not be able to take the monsters as anything but literal fact, and are scared out of their wits by what might be in the dark closet, the dark attic or cellar, the dark forest, and so on. but as we mature we are supposed to be able to make the distinctions between fiction and fact.
When you "kill" a character in a game, or read of a character killed in a novel or read of a character killed in a novel, do you take that to mean that you should then kill real people? Or that the good or bad character represents all good or bad people? Most likely you do not.
A carefully written novel or well made film can depict people very subtly, accurately, and believably -- but the characters are not in fact real. That is why we can read novels in which characters are killed, murdered, tortured, raped, etc. without being incited to kill, murder, torture, rape, or even annoy greatly real people--persons in the flesh.
You suspend disbelief while you play the game, read, watch the movie--for the moment it seems very real. But when it is over, the voluntary suspension of disbelief ends.
I don't deny the validity of your conclusion, but it ain't sound. It is selective and misleading, because my statement, which is selectively used in your argument, is not directed at those who find libel unfair but at those who believe that an unfair portrayal could somehow objectify or diminish what it portrays. It takes magical thinking, social constructionism, or the like, to believe that a mere utterance or depiction could diminish or objectify what it portrays. But one does not have to be a social constructionist to find portrayals unfair or draft libel laws against them.
I don't see how I'm using your statement "selectively" in my argument (if anything, it seems that you're the one who's using it "selectively" here). You said that it takes magical thinking or "social constructivism" in order to "to believe that a mere utterance or depiction could diminish or objectify what it portrays". But then you go on to say that one does not need that in order to find "portrayals unfair or draft libel laws against them". Now, presumably, the purpose of libel laws is to redress harm. In particular, it redress the harm constituted by an unfair portrayal. So why are feminists selectively singled out as requiring magical thinking when they point out that some portrayals of women constitute harm?
It is open to read in my post (e.g. "Granted that some.. portrayals are unfair or misleading...") that here I'm not primarily concerned with the right or wrong of portrayals but the relation in the assumption that one could be diminished or objectified by them. In social constructionism, for instance, it is assumed (incorrectly) that our reality would be constructed by they ways we portray it.
You omit what is said in my post, and instead misuse one of it sentences in a related but different context, libel, which concerns the right and wrong of portrayals. The shift of context makes the sentence appear ironic or irrational, which seems to be your primary concern. But your argument isn't sound, just vengeful sophistry disguised as "logic".
My primary concern is to point out that your claim is dubious. You asserted that magical thinking is a necessary condition for believing that unfair portrayals could be harmful. I countered that this claim entails the dubious conclusion that libel laws only make sense under the assumption that magical thinking is correct. Notice that libel laws are not simply concerned with the correctness of a given portrayal, but whether the portrayal itself constitutes harm. So my question is: in what sense is the claim that libel is itself harmful different from the claim that some portrayals of women also constitute harm? There must be some difference, if the latter, but not the former, entails magical thinking. But you haven't spelled it out.
Why do you rephrase what is open to read? I've said none of those things. Your argument is clearly unsound, and the above is an informal fallacy (loaded question).
I'm trying to understand your position here. I'll be direct: why do you think that the fact that libel constitutes harm does not require magical thinking, whereas you suggest that to think that some portrayals of women (the objectifying ones) also constitute harm does require magical thinking?
Some of us aren't in favor of libel laws, by the way.
One does not need to be in favor of libel laws in order to recognize that it (libel) constitutes harm.
I'd agree with that, but I don't agree that libel is sufficient for harm, either.
On the other hand, "harm" is ambiguous, so we'd need to define it better.
Libel is a legal term, recall, not a constitution of harm. Courts of law investigate whether a case of alleged libel is unlawful. You don't get to determine that libel would constitute harm.
But when they do determine that a case of alleged libel is unlawful, they presumably are not engaging in magical thinking.
I'm not saying that (alleged) libel is sufficient for harm, either. What I am saying is that when it constitutes harm, then there's no magic involved.
As for the ambiguity of harm, I don't think there's any need for a definition, if we can agree that at least some cases of libel are harmful.
Well, I personally think (1) is clearly wrong; there need be no "magical thinking" or "social constructivism" involved in the thought that unfair portrayals can be harmful.
I wasn't saying that I don't agree that ALLEGED libel is sufficient for harm. I don't agree that libel is sufficient for harm period. It can't constitute harm. No cases of libel are harmful. (Was that clear enough that time?)
That's clear, but I'd be surprised if that's what you intended to say. It follows from that that the Ewells' libellous accusations of rape against Tom Robinson in 'To Kill a Mockingbird' were not harmful, despite the fact that they led to trauma and finally death for Tom.
Is that your position?
This is the entire issue in a nutshell. People, especially feminists, seem to find it impossible to view women as actual individuals rather than some soulless member of a wider homogenous group. Digital, fictional renderings that have a female gender, literally cannot harm anyone (unless you perform some wild mental gymnastics).
Anyone who is legitimately offended by this (as in, it's not feigned for some political end) is borderline mentally ill. Women are actual individuals, with their own agency, desires, and thoughts! The TRUE objectification of women occurs when you only see them as nothing more than a singular representation of some wider political group ("women"). You reduce women to some homogenous mass, destroying all individuality.
The only thing fictional graphic characters represent is themselves. You can't represent (and therefore offend) EVERY SINGLE WOMAN with a singular drawing. And the females that see an image of a female character and can't avoid taking that character to be a representation of every single female on the planet (including herself) AND gets offended by it because she's so absorbed within this homogenous mass called "women" that she can't see herself as a separate individual (an Individual wouldn't find it offensive because she refuses to believe she's being represented by the image) - she can only see herself as a absorbed within this singular group which therefore CAN be represented by a single image (an image which she takes exception to because it doesn't represent her, as a female, the way she wants - it's borderline mental illness. An inability to see yourself as an individual, nor see images which you share some feature with (sex) as LITERALLY being a representation of yourself.
It's madness. It's like a male getting offended by a muscled action figure toy because if doesn't represent himself accurately (or really, represent himself in a way that he specifically wants to be represented). The action figure doesn't represent anything but itself. It's madness to constantly see yourself being represented everywhere - and getting constantly offended because you don't like how you're being portrayed.
Even if all women WERE magically being represented by this fictional character in a computer (?) game, you still need to explain why it is a bad thing. 'Objectification' (whatever that means.. ) is not automatically a bad thing.
I mean seriously if you can't look at pornographic pictures of a woman who choose under her own agency to have those images produced, without quite literally seeing yourself being represented by her, you might want to consider therapy! The only thing women who work in porn represent in the images/video they produce is THEMSELVES.
"Should objectification be banned?"
Only if you want to live under an oppressive police state! Even if you don't like it, you shouldn't just force others through threat of police/judicial punishment to not do it, that's North Korea tier madness.
Maybe some women enjoy being objectified? Maybe some women enjoy viewing sexualised images of other females (or female game characters). Females comprise a not insignificant percentage of the gaming community, maybe developers are catering to their female customers when they make sexy images of medieval women. Maybe women like playing as them? Tonnes of women love being seen as sexy and attractive, and enjoy the power that comes from being an object of sexual desire, or being prettier than other women. Either way the idea that sexy female fictional females harms actual individual women (for some vague unexpressed reason) and therefore specifically men (it's said to be empowering when women do it ...) need to be stopped from producing and enjoying these images is thoroughly suspect - laughable really.
Here's an easy solution: stop being so self centred that you literally think every depiction of a female, across all forms of media, is a representation of yourself! And stop being offended by EVERY SINGLE THING EVER. And grow a thicker skin anyway - you don't like how the females in a video game look, don't buy and play the stupid game. They complain about the 'patriarchy' and then screech for basically men to fix it for them and cater to them, like they're children who need looking after. It's crazy, we live in this culture of offence. I DONT LIKE IT WAA BAN IT BAN IT ILLEGAL WAA STOP COMMITTING THOUGHT CRIMES BAN IT I AM SO OFFENDED LIKE WOW I JUST CANT EVEN WAA.
/rant
That's a good point.
One might add that when you see a woman you see the woman, not a portrait. Unless she's acting in a theatre she represents neither a portrayal of herself, nor of other women.
Yet some people seem to think that all they see would be representational, or a social construction, and thus engage in political campaigns to re-construct it their way. Hence the rhetoric about objectification.
Be surprised--that's my position. Libel isn't the problem in that case. Speech doesn't directly cause other actions, or at least it can not be shown to.
Who cares about 'directly' - this new word that you have tried to smuggle into the discussion? Fortunately, the answer is - almost nobody, including the law in most countries. 'Directly' is a meaningless notion.
Probably I do, which is why I'd bring it up.
Meaning is subjective, by the way.
Blaming it on "patriarchy" or conspiracies is rather silly, on some level, good or bad, it is a part of human nature, as evolutionary psychology more or less affirms, much as this does not mean we need or have to "reduce" human motivations to the purely sexual; in practice though, as most people get married or have a relationship, it does play a significant part in many if not most people's lives.
If like an accusation of rape, it is actually those who believe it who are the only ones causing harm, then there is no problem with bad ideas, like objectification of women. The problem would be that these future generations DECIDE to believe them. That's where the problem lies. So the actual creation of bad ideas and the spreading of bad ideas is not problematic, in the least.
Recognizing that women are being treated as a homogenous group is not the same as treating them as a homogenous group.
A logic to which you yourself must adhere, or else you would not be able to recognize the supposed homogenous treatment by either pornographers OR political activists.
By participating in the capitalist economy, you--we--are supporting an establishment that ruthlessly objectifies and exploits men, women, children, animals--the very earth itself. Media is but a part od the grand scheme.
Sex sells, and humans enhance their market value by whatever tricks in the book are available to them. Back in the day before proper trousers became common, men wore leggings that did not join at the waist. The genitals were not covered, so other arrangements were made. One of the other arrangements was the 'cod piece' -- initially a mere piece of cloth which was developed into a showy cup that made it appear the man had a huge and erect penis. Sexual advertisement and objectification in action--by men.
Women--and men--both engage in sexual advertisement as a form of self-advancement self-enhancement. Given instances might not be quite as obvious as the cod piece or the artfully bared breast. And why would we NOT engage in self-enhancing, self-advancing deployment of clothing or tattoos or bared skin?
BTW, I got a little rush seeing some old names on the first page of the posts, then I noticed that the thread was 3 years old. How time flies!
I agree with this, I don't see video games as an industry any 'different' in that regard than other forms of media and entertainment (e.x. 1990s Madonna music videos, 1970s comic books, etc), some trends of which have always been around, perhaps in varying degrees.
Most likely, since video games are a "newer" phenomenon they are standing out more than older forms of media.
As far as sexism or 'exploitation', I think there is a fine line between strict puritanism, and exploitation (apparently even back in Shakespeare time's, there were some "puritanish" thoughts in regards to his writings.
To me, I think it has a lot to do with how it fits into the overall context, such as a difference between "containing" sex and violence, or sex and violence for the pure sake of it, and there is of course no 'scientific' way of defining it.
My advice would be to either boycott the entire mediums, if one has a problem with it (not just 'video games', but TV, film, comics, etc), or to at least attempt to come up with something akin to a consistent 'formula' for vetting it, or otherwise then it's just 'he said'', 'she said'.
And as far as sensationalist media goes, it seems like a lot of it is predicated on stirring up controversy using loaded words (e.x. sexist, violence) not proportionate to the subject matter or context, simply because it "sells" and appeals to emotions over logic.
Of course. Logic is a fine facility for some kinds of problems, but entirely unsuited for cultural appreciation and participation. The opposite is true as well -- sometimes we really have to try very hard to screen out emotional response.
I just want to emphasize that capitalism exploits everyone in every available venue--work, family life, entertainment, leisure, etc. As Marx said, "Under capitalism, everything is reduced to the cash connection."
Capitalism didn't invent exploitation -- that's been around for millennia. What capitalism does is intensify exploitation and make it ubiquitous--and more efficient.
"People" don't like talking about how capitalism degrades life. They would rather talk about sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, blah blah blah, rather than talking about the herd of elephants in the room. Back in the day when there were 3 networks and nothing else, people spent a lot of time criticizing television. most people didn't realize that the IMPORTANT parts of television programming were the commercials; the programs were just bait.
The relationship of users to media is basically the same. The POINT of Facebook, Google, Yahoo, et al is to put advertising in front of eyeballs; that's how they make money. I use Google Search all the time and value it highly -- but search is the bait. Sharing pictures of your cat with the world is the bait for Facebook. At least with pornography, the product and the bait are one and the same thing.
Our use of the internet (what we look at, when, for how long, whether we click or not, all that stuff) is the product that is sold to advertisers. Everything we do socially and economically that can be tracked and valued is tracked and valued. That's why your cell phone keeps track of where you are at every moment of the day (assuming you have not disabled location functions): Where you go and when is very useful information to companies that want to sell you stuff. Of course it's also useful for governments which might have an unsavory interest in what you do with your time--when, where, and with whom.
it "sells" and appeals to emotions over logic
— IvoryBlackBishop
Of course. Logic is a fine facility for some kinds of problems, but entirely unsuited for cultural appreciation and participation. The opposite is true as well -- sometimes we really have to try very hard to screen out emotional response.
I just want to emphasize that capitalism exploits everyone in every available venue--work, family life, entertainment, leisure, etc. As Marx said, "Under capitalism, everything is reduced to the cash connection."
Capitalism didn't invent exploitation -- that's been around for millennia. What capitalism does is intensify exploitation and make it ubiquitous--and more efficient.
[/quote]
How do you define capitalism? Are you talking about a specific definition or theory of capitalism, or human behavior?
In basic sense of private property, I believe that, on some level that is a part of human nature, and I disagree with "utopian" theories, such as that "civilization" invented private property or exploitation. (As an example, ant colonies have social "roles", ranks, division of labor, so I believe on some level, merely owning personal or private property is inevitable, and not necessarily "bad).
If you mean consumerism, or people indulging in fatuities such as "googling for cat pictures" instead of doing more productive things, I believe on some level that is a part of human nature, and that people can take action to boycott or remove those things from their lives, so I'm not sure I can blame "capitalism", especially a modern incarnation or notion of it.
As far as Google's business model or mission statement, I'm unsure, but you said yourself you don't 'have' to use if for purely mindless things like cat pictures and can use it for more productive or 'serious' things as well.
You have an obvious option. You can choose not to watch it. Media is about attracting eyeballs to make money. Find fault with the men who like that stuff if you must. I like it. Find fault with capitalism maybe, but what other system would best suit us? Got any alternatives?
One can object to "consumerism" and that becomes a problem for people when it gets out of hand and no longer serves the interests of the person doing the consuming. Buying stuff that doesn't make one particularly happy on credit (with high interest rates) is consumerism against the consumer. Getting people to buy stuff that doesn't and can't make their life better is just exploitation.
True enough: We can use media for our own purposes, but we do well to remember that the owners of media also have purposes, and quite often our welfare isn't one of them.
This never stops to amaze me. They show naked women available in all possible variety of attractiveness, in actions that are diverse to satisfy anyone's interest. Then they put an ad there: "YOU can watch this very same thing right now, if you pay some money pronto." This is not marketing. This is not adding. This is not Zen.
Some may immediately say that suggesting such a thing is suggesting rape is "good", however as far as the law is concerned, if it legally qualifies as "consensual" then that's what it is, even if the physical act is "identical" to an actual act perpetrated by a "rapist".
Much as how the physical acts in a contact sport like martial arts would be illegal and criminal, if they were done by a mugger without a person's consent, but in the context of a sport, where all participants voluntarily and legally consent, it is not considered as such.
Not to say it does not happen. It happens on porn sites all over. They must think that people who don't have girflriends must be morons.
This is actually interesting. 1. People think of others who they think are very different from themselves, as morons.
2. People who get something very easily, and see others can't get the same thing, think of those as morons. 3. Everyone thinks they are of above average intelligence.
This puts the stupidity of this particular marketing initiative in perspective. I think of those guys as morons, and they think of me as a moron.
Mutual disparaging and mutual disdain. The thing that propels all social movents in the world.
True, and this is also true:
Much as how the physical acts in a contact sport like marital arts would be illegal and criminal, if they were done by a lover without a person's consent,
While I don't condone rape, consentual or not, I condone the use of condoms in a condominium-wide clusterfuck. Consensual rape only occurs in condominant cooperative co-dependent relationships, anyway. With each other, needless to say, though it needels me to say.