This is a response to the article:
Thoughts On Women Oppression And Porn
It offers a female feminist's perspective on the afformentioned.
Opening the article, author @sean-king leads in by defining and making notes on evolutionary #psychology (the idea that, useful mental and psychological traits—such as memory, perception, or language—as adaptations, i.e., as the functional products of natural selection). Highlighting that women (evolutionarily) hold sexual power.
He then begs the question: “Given this birthright evolutionary power over men's psyches, women could easily rule the world. But...they don't. Why?”
The answer is simple: we often don’t hold the power.
Not all women (people) want to be empowered sexually, so the ideal that it is “woman’s birthright” to hold sexual power is a sexist stereotype. Implying that (through a born-male, heteronormative perception) women are purely sexual influencing beings is a primitive ideal that helps uphold a patriarchal society. It is borderline Freudian.
Evolutionarily speaking, humans are capable of developing different behaviours genetically and adaptively. People are slowly realizing that we aren’t just monkeys, purely motivated by mating and hetero reproduction. This is evolution: the part of the mind that built civilizations, art, invented technology, and questioned society.
Is This Empowerment, Or Objectification?
Selling sex appeal is indeed a guilty culprit of objectification and dehumanization, but it’s not always repressing (sexually, socially or economically).
It can be difficult to draw the line between sexual empowerment and objectification, so this might help you understand the difference:
Who has the power?
If the person being subjected has the power, than it is empowerment.
However, if that person has little or no power, they are being objectified.
Ask yourself: Is the person aware and consenting to sexualizing the situation?
If the answer is No, it is most likely objectification.
If the answer is Yes, then it is definitely empowering!
“Do we objectify or dehumanize people when we allow them, without shame or scorn, in fact with praise, to market valuable assets (with their free will and consent)?”
That’s a rhetorical question.
Race, class, gender, or privilege aside; people benefit from empowerment. Sometimes, the empowerment comes from sexual means, and other times, it’s monetary. Most privileged people, feminists, and others alike will agree that sex sells.
Things aren’t as black and white as the author originally questioned, though.
When we have women(people) that are subjected to their quote unquote “inherent sexuality,” without consent, that’s when we have problems like dehumanization and objectification. Gender inequality is a much larger issue than just porn.
Feminism has one goal: to abolish the prejudice of (women) on the basis of sex, and for equal rights politically, socially, and economically.
Throughout the entire article, the author is attempting to explain what is wrong with society's treatment of women: yet simultaneously perpetuating what is wrong with it.
While, yes, it’s good to embrace your sexuality, and #gender: we have to realize that those are two completely separate subjects. Gender inequality shouldn’t have that many parallels to sexuality/sex. Sexualization is one of the underlying causes of gender inequality.
It’s wonderful we are finally starting to see the effects of oppression, and are analyzing our behaviors… but it’s going to take a lot to change society, and even more for us to abolish the true underlying aggressor:
institutionalized #sexism and #discrimination against #women of all ages, races and identifications.
Note that while I do not agree with the evolutionary psychology ideologies stated in the article in question, I do agree that there is a problem with gender discrimination that must be confronted.
I hope you take these responses into consideration when thinking about how we interact and treat women.
I think the judger holds all the power and the judgee holds no power whether they are aware or not. If they're aware, that means they are actively trying to seek approval, which might be even worse.
It's definitely up for interpretation, that's for sure. Obviously there are many factors to consider. I was trying to simplify the idea, in order for it to be more digestible.
Thanks for this. I have a few thoughts and look forward to responding when I can.
Likewise, I am looking forward to your response!
Here are my promised thoughts. Thanks again. https://steemit.com/sex/@sean-king/more-thoughts-on-women-oppression-and-porn
Actually, the patterns objectifying or subjectifying (based on the author's statements about consent) shouldn't be taken as immutable facts as depending on personality, social situation, norm modification, ect, the individual would likely have a shifting perspective on whether they are being objectified or subjectified, so it follows that you may be able to come with an statistical norm for that individual, but you could not find concrete (once and for all time) label for any segment of the population or an individual whose life is in any flux--whether that be socially, personally, or financially. It would be interesting if a study could be done and hammer out the details and get some better data on sexism (both from men and women), personality, social situation, social norms, personal conduct, ect, effect a persons perception of how they are or are not being objectified, or subjectified (though that last term needs some refining AFAICS).
While I agree, I would like to reiterate that both I and @sean-king express in our articles these are personal thoughts and insights. I did not provide any statistics or studies as this is a response motivated by my experience as a woman and how I have observed sexual objectification and gender discrimination.
A greater point is how any experience is objective, so any observation that hinges its truths on subjective observation is bound to be wrong--though truthful to the one making the observation (we believe what we believe but we don't know why we believe it--primal programming engendered by language systems battling for the next data stack to incorporate itself into the psyche)--tried to say all I mean in that statement as we start paying for posts [and editing] after 4 in specified window--I think it's 24 hours, but there are 6 hour intervals that diminish the fee greatly--IIRC.
On the contrary, experiences are subjective. When we are influenced by our feelings and opinions, we are being subjective. That does not mean it is inherently wrong, however. If you take a look objectively we can still see that gender roles and discrimination is something deeply instilled in society-- regardless of my subjective responses.
I would like to also point out that I never stated that I am accounting for the entire female population. This is a female motivated response to a man's opinions on female oppression.
He, nor I, can make concrete statements. We are merely forming out own, subjective opinions.
Not on the contrary, that was exactly what I was pointing out--though I'd go further and say any opinions not grounded with some objective test (such as the algorithm creating a statistical norm) are pointless unless you are trying to out will an opponent in the Judaic God sense of might makes right--most western thought is platonic, so this line of reasoning usually leads no where and some scientific inquiry is needed to make any actionable change within the system. Hope, you follow what I'm saying, as I think you prior statements agree to the subjective versus objective point, though you may feel opinion finding a more useful exercise than I do. I'm very rational, so evidence and results are my bread and butter, preferably served on white bread and without much thought to what it taste like (that was a joke, I think).
@veralynn i just posted a blog on gender bias, let me know what you think of it. thanks.
https://steemit.com/domestic/@tjpezlo/gender-bias-men-abused
In modern society, people are spending a lot of time on the philosophy in order to be able to control other people and their opinions. One kind of such a philosophy is ethics.
It would be great if people just dared to love and to do anything in spite of ethics and other philosophical views.
I agree! Thank you for such a powerful response.
oh, how exciting. what a good idea.
I also saw that article blow up and I'm glad to see somebody write something substantive about why they were wrong.
When I read the article you are replying to, and he concluded with the idea that 'steemit is great because we can use it for porn' I felt slimy just for reading it...
Thanks for sharing this @veralynn. it's great to see a female's perspective on this.I
enjoyed reading your post, and I love the last paragraph. As men, we really should be thinking about how about we interact and treat women in society.
Damn. Thanks for writing this. I had wanted to write exactly what you did but alas, I got distracted!
"Who has the power?
If the person being subjected has the power, than it is empowerment.
However, if that person has little or no power, they are being objectified."
I have been saying this since DAY 1. When more whales are females, we will start to see some shifting perspectives. I for one would like to see men exploit themselves more, if they are so inclined to do so. This is an area that is completely wide open now on Steemit. I see one of the problems that exist in society: men don't really think of themselves as sexual objects, therefore they cannot really value their inherent sexy gifts. This is because women traditionally have not had power and money to influence their behaviour and actions in a pleasing manner, geared towards the female gaze. When any little shrimp trolls me as a "FEMINIST" I just laugh. I am a cougar. I love men in a way that's unhealthy. If anything, I am a total fantasy addict. An eccentric person. A voyeur. Sick, maybe, but at least I know it.
Couldn't have said it better myself! Thank you so much for the encouragement and insights @stellabelle.
Men are not pursued sexually simply because sperm is plentiful and cheap. Women are pursued sexually simply because eggs are rare and valuable. It has nothing to do with women not have sufficient economic influence to induce men to exploit their sexuality.
That analogy is only good on a biological standpoint, though... people are more motivated by social and psychological factors than they are on an evolutionary basis, in my opinion.
Example:
I pursue men and women. Regardless of my "economic influence," I don't value sperm or eggs, personally, because I don't want to conceive or impregnate a woman.
A lot of people don't fit into that categorization. It sounds trite because there's so much more to people then X and Y.
It's not a matter of "values", it's a matter of instinctual drives. Birds don't "value" flying south in the winter, they just do it instinctually. Humans (on average) SAY that they VALUE monogamy, but instinctually they pursue multiple sex partners. Virtially all psychologists (whether of the evolutionary variety or not) and virtually all scientists agree that humans act mostly as a consequence of unconscious urges and that free will is mostly an illusion. I understand you to disagree with that. That's fine. Just know that the science is against you, so don't cite science to support any of your positions in the future.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MzW-r_vPf50
https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness?language=en
I don't know how many times I have to say this: I never denied science as a whole.
There are a lot more factors that go into what motivates us besides instinct, as I previously said. If you feel that instinct is your only motivator, not your experiences, then yes, I definitely disagree with that.
It's an overly simplified cop out to excuse bad behavior, and gives people zero accountability for their actions because it's all "unconscious."
We need more of these types of debates in Steem.
Let me add one important, VERY IMPORTANT POINT.
As you know I am a woman. Throughout my posting here on Steemit, I chose to use my intellectual capacities to solve problems, starting on day one.
I had created the Secret Writer way before Steemit, and moved it here. What I discovered, by chance is that the Secret Writer Service is overwhelmingly male. This shocked me actually. But then, so through my service to others, I learned that I could help men with accepting their shameful secrets. well, actually the steemit community is doing that on their own. Somehow, by removing the author's identity, they don't get attacked or trolled. Isn't that fascinating????
I now think that there really is a problem going on with men not being able to become themselves, due to the social pressures, and bullying environment that men, themselves, inflict upon each other. I had never really thought of myself as a person able to help men specifically with accepting themselves, but that role has now become my main thing in life. I think everyone should be treated with respect and have the ability to become who they were meant to be. Freedom is my main theme. But freedom, devoid of abuse, That's the real deal. That's something we don't have but something I think is worth striving for. Steemit is a good start to that end goal. Financial freedom leads to other freedoms. That's something that was never really addressed in previous models.
Instead of exploiting myself, I chose to try and create solutions that help people become more successful, more productive and less fearful. These solutions all revolved around me using my intellectual and creative skills. Some women do not like to sexually exploit themselves. I have a private life, and I like to keep visual stuff to my lovers, not to the world. I write about experiences, but I don't actively exploit myself in a visual way. This is my choice. Sean-king's article denies my creativity and intellectual capacities. This is problematic because it assumes that "all women are alike in this one area." Not all men are wired the same either. To assume so would be making a grave mistake.
Discounting women's intellectual achievements is a problem that men have been making for centuries. It's something that needs work.........
Thank you for this incredibly valuable response! I was eagerly waiting for you to catch wind of this, as I admire you as a fellow female author. Hopefully articles like this get more attention so that Steemit can become of platform for men and women equally.
@stellabelle, I was with you right up till the end. It's simply not true that:
How could you possibly have read what I wrote and think that I believe what you say I do? Of COURSE not all women are alike, in this area or any other area. And of COURSE women can excel intellectually and in a great many other ways. If you read the very first paragraph of my original post, you would see that I went to great lengths to say that I was speaking about mean and women ON AVERAGE and that not every man or every women fulfills, or should fulfill, their respective stereotype.
Additionally, I NEVER discounted women's intellectual capabilities.
The impetus of my post first post (and all subsequent ones and related comments) was NOT that women are only or even primarily sexual creatures. My point was that sexual power is inherent in a significant percentage of the female population, that this power is potent, and that women have been conned/shamed into not using it.
Let me give two brief examples from the music industry, Taylor Swift and Beyonce Knowles. Both are INCREDIBLE talents. Both are gifted artists, musicians and clearly far smarter than the average bear. Both COULD make a living, and have some power, by simply relying on their musical talent and their intelligence. They could sing in a paper sack and do okay. But...they don't. Yes, they most definitely exploit the heck out of their musical skills and talents, but they ALSO exploit the heck out of their sexuality too. And because they exploit ALL of their power, they are both incredibly powerful (and wealthy) women. What a shame it would be (IMHO) if either of them had been shamed or conned into laying down one of their great life advantages (their sexuality) and instead rely ONLY on others.
It's fine that YOU want to rely only on non-sexual gifts. I have ZERO problem with that. My only problem would be if you (like a great many traditional feminists) tried to shame or criticize other women (like Beyonce or Taylor, to name just two examples) for exploiting ALL their talents and opportunities. To date, I've not heard you say that you support and endorse women doing that (if that's what strikes their fancy), and that you oppose efforts to silence or prevent them from doing so. If you were to make such a statement, then you and I would be in complete agreement.
@stellabelle never shamed women for being open about their sexuality.
You're assuming the latter because she never specified otherwise? What you're saying sounds like a hasty allegation.
Not sure why you feel the need to argue about it when we're pretty much all on the same page.
We shouldn't assume or make if/and/all statements.
Please read my comments and posts more carefully. I tire of responding to criticisms that simply are invalid reflections of my position, and of slaying straw men. I NEVER accused @stellabelle of shaming women about their sexuality. Rather, I accused men, religion and traditional feminists (as opposed to more modern "sex positive" feminists) of doing so.
And, I'm not arguing. Rather, I was simply setting the record straight by responding to @stellabelle's straw man accusations that I "deny her creativity and intellectual capacities" and that my arguments assume that "all men" and "all women" are the same and that I "discount women's intellectual achievements.". To the extent that she really believes those things to be my position, we definitely are not "pretty much all on the same page."
Read this carefully, and it still seems like you are inferring that @stellabelle shames or shuns women's sexuality. Nor did she ever explicitly say that she feels that way.
To an outside perspective, this comes off as argumentative. (Trying to offer constructive input)
I didn't have a chance to vote on this before the 12 hours. I read sean-king's response to this just now and I wanted to make sure you received an up vote as well. This great debate, and great content couldn't happen without both of you.
Women sort of are the "gate keepers".
no, men are. Men control most of the world's money. Money gets the final say actually.... Money is power.
I'd like to offer a critical response to your response:
@stellabelle, you've been divided and conquered by the .1%. See what they did there? Who controls most of the world's money? Humans (admittedly, the male-female mix is probably like 75-25 favoring males) , of both genders, who work very hard to ensure that they and only they control most of the world's money.
Don't let them cause disharmony in our ranks on gender lines, it's a tactic-- recognize it :).
"Gate keepers" in regards to what, exactly? Genuinely curious, as that statement is vague.
This is gatekeeper!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics