Creepy enough is the illustration of American politics using Megan Fox’s body. Really disgusting is the response over at Red State — first the skeevy post, and then the comments about how Fox is stupid and/or a whore. It’s pretty much a perfect storm of misogyny.
Thanks to Raf for the link.
You’re probably going to think I’m gunning for a spot in next seasons’ FNTT with this question, but here it goes….
How does modern non-radical feminism really take issue with objectifying (for lack of better term) female bodies? Isn’t there an inherent tension with the message that “it’s okay to keep your body fit and look pretty” and then in the same breath saying “but if men objectify us that’s bad.” Well, the whole project of looking good and dressing nicely etc. is to conform to some male notion of female beauty and style, for man’s visual pleasure. You don’t have to be a radical to realize that . So how does modern feminism draw the line here? I’m not saying women shouldn’t look nice if they want to, I just want to know how feminism answers this.
Looks like I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue.
Well, the whole project of looking good and dressing nicely etc. is to conform to some male notion of female beauty and style, for man’s visual pleasure.
It is? You mean women can’t dress nicely and make themselves look good because, say, they like the way they look? Or that women can’t dress nicely for their female partners?
Well, the whole project of looking good and dressing nicely etc. is to conform to some male notion of female beauty and style, for man’s visual pleasure.
I don’t think that’s what the “whole project of looking good” is about at all. I try to look good to feel positive about myself, have confidence, etc., and to make an impression at work/school/social functions, and to keep up my health, and to attract a mate (I personally prefer men, but if I were homosexual, wouldn’t I be dressing to impress another woman?)… There are many reasons to look good. Why should we be seen as less-than-people that are just around for men to look at for taking pride in our appearance, trying to make an impression, looking for a potential mate, etc.?
Oh, yeah, the main topic. Right. Heh.
Well, I’m not a fan of Megan Fox, like, at all, but I do believe that she should be treated with respect, just as everyone else, and the comments posted at Red State were just completely unecessary – not to mention sickening.
Jeff and Gwrthryfel:
I guess my thinking is that, if we look at the *source* of the standards for female beauty, we cannot deny that it stems from male demand for a certain body image and style choice. I just don’t think we can ignore that history.
We know based on anthropology that concepts of beauty depend on one’s culture. So if you’re going to the gym/dressing a certain way to (as you consciously might rationalize it) “feel good about yourself,” you’ve still internalized a concept of beauty that (I would argue) is created and driven in our culture largely by what men want and desire. So even if you aren’t consciously aware of it, you are in fact adopting a male concept of beauty that was created for their pleasure. Put another way: even if they are not intensionally equivalent, extensionally there is no difference between “dressing to feel good about yourself” and “dressing to suit male concepts of beauty.”
The reason I find this so troubling is that the implication seems unacceptable – should you not dress to feel good about yourself simply because your concept of feeling good comes form some oppressive reality?
So how does modern feminism draw the line here? I’m not saying women shouldn’t look nice if they want to, I just want to know how feminism answers this.
There is not a single feminism, there are many feminisms (or in some cases, womanisms). In other words, you’re not going to get one answer. You’ll probably get a different answer for every feminist/womanist you ask.
Melancholia – In my mind, the line is drawn when it comes to my actions vs. some guy’s. Even if the standard of beauty to which I’m adhering has a history based in men’s preferences, I’m the one choosing to adhere to it. Even if I’m brainwashed, I’m looking in the mirror and liking what I see. Or look at it the other way – if I chose to consciously defy current standards of beauty and not shave my legs or wear makeup, I’m still letting the way I look be influenced by a male-centric standard of beauty, because I’m rebelling against it. So there’s just no way to avoid that patriarchal standard of beauty; one way or the other, it’s had an impact on your choice. The important thing is that you like what you see when you look in the mirror.
Male objectification happens regardless of the choice I make. Whether I dress up or dress down or don’t care, some man is going to look at me, and he may well completely discard my personhood and see me as merely an object to be looked at. I’m not one of those, and he’s wrong to do it. There’s a admiring something that’s aesthetically pleasing, and then there’s feeling that something has no other purpose or value than for you to look at it.
*snort* wow dude.
Also notice, the link at RedState says “Megan Fox explains American Politics Using her Body” as though she had anything to do with it. she isnt using her body to make totally inane “political commentary,” someone sexist jerk is.
@Melancholia:
I believe ACG has it pretty much covered. Women can be objectified by men, even dressing in ambiguous, bland clothing. Women adhereing to male standards of beauty does not cause objectification. For instance, in the Medieval age, among peasants and the lower middle class – the vast majority of the population – clothing was largely ambiguous and women couldn’t afford makeup, and yet standard was the view that women were property.
Holy shit that link is so creepy. Just like Megan Fox, I have no words. You have to kind of hate the douchebag who thought that was a good idea, and probably has no concept of what a douchebag he is.
also, they’re not male standards of beauty. They’re cultural standards. That’s why they keep changing. It makes just as much sense to say that women aspiring towards a certain type of beauty creates male demand for it. Both feedback loops are in operation.
I just wish men made more of an effort. Bring back doublet and hose, or the codpiece. I’d like to know when dressing up became a feminine thing. It’s not fair.
@ACG –
That last sentence is a perfect distillation of the difference between objectification and appreciation. I’m a heterosexual male; I notice attractive women — just as I’m sure heterosexual women notice attractive men. That’s not wrong, per se, until you forget that the person you’re noticing is a person, rather than something for you to stare at.
I would say objectification in general is wrong — whether it’s sexual or not, people should be recognized as people with agency and feelings, not seen as objects for others’ pleasure, or instinct-driven animals, or mysterious Others, et c. I doubt any of us would argue that Megan Fox doesn’t cater to the male gaze. But we do argue that she deserves to be treated as a human regardless of that, just as we’d argue that she deserves to be treated as a human ‘despite’ being a woman, ‘despite’ any other deviations from the patriarchal norm of white male able-bodied cissexual straight, et c.
I believe the standard around here is that no one should be treated as an object, even if the actions they have taken (for instance, being a hateful right-wing hatemonger and/or running for Vice President with little experience) are objectionable. (Pun not intended :p )
Melancholia — I think you actually bring up a very good question and it’s not silly to want to dig deeper. Someone else said “oh it’s not men it’s culture” seems kind of redundant when our culture is run and therefore defined by men. As long as maleness is default, almost all notions of beauty that are “culturally” defined are in fact male defined. And I agree with you that people don’t dress up for “themselves”– liking what you see can have a lot to do with internalized ideas of beauty, and there are more ways to look than “conventionally pretty”, “rebellious” or “somewhere in between”.
I think one of the inherent problems with fashion is that women’s bodies are still seen as for looking at and for sex before much else, while men’s bodies are seen as “functional”. A professor pointed out to me that it is, in contemporary American culture, the women, people of color, and gay men who are “colorful” on the red carpet, because they are “there to entertain you”, while normative white men wear basically the same look– black and white tux. My roomate is a fashion major and many pieces of clothing are in their own right high art. The problem with this is that art is an object, and “fashion” = women, and putting an art object on a woman makes the woman even more of an object. It’s tough because I do like nice looking clothes for purely color/pattern/texture reasons, but I don’t want to be seen as a hanger. It’s part of why much of my wardrobe has slid into outright drag– ties may be purely decorative at this point but they are not designed to emphasize some sexualized part of a man’s body nor does a man become a hanger for his tie. Men’s clothing tends to be more designed for comfort and utility in general, though I’ve heard a few complain that for this reason women have “all the fun” when it comes to clothes. Grass is greener, I suppose…
There’s much more that could be dug into with this. I like this discussion topic. And yes, I like the way my eyes look in eyeliner, but it is definitely 100% because it makes them look bigger and that’s what I’ve been told is the standard of pretty. But I don’t not shave because it pisses people off, I don’t shave because I don’t see the point. Beauty serves no overt function other than letting people around you know you are compliant. Some might argue that men might like it simply because it’s what they’ve been told/decided is pretty, others would suggest that men might like it because it symbolizes a willingness to submit… That might be too radical a notion for this crowd, maybe not…