RazorOutlaw wrote:Duckie, you've got me. I've seen responses to 2nd wave feminism on this board but other than that I've never really engaged anyone in a discussion on the subject. As such, I'm unarmed. I guess you could say I instinctively agree with her but I also trust her. She's really big on women's studies and has looked at the issues women face much longer than I have (in fact that's pretty much the degree she was going for at the nearest university). In other words: what the hell do I know? On top of that I'm not a woman so I don't know what it's like - I have seen men turn their heads to look at a woman. I've done it too but I don't know what it's like to be on the receiving end. Any comments about objectification I feel basically helpless against. But now I'm curious - is there anything you recommend that I read about second wave feminism? I might as well educate myself.
Well, let me restate- for all their faults in social mores, Second Wave Feminism did the backbreaking work for making female equality exist at all, and they did somewhat liberalise social mores a bit anyhow (by empowering women) compared to what they were in the 40s and early 50s for most Americans. But just because they did a shitload of good a few generations ago doesn't mean they were perfect, in the same way as most of the Americans who fought in WWII were racists. They went a little overboard- the fear of sex and of female sexuality, and hatred for men sexualising women comes from the more extreme wings that produced Andrea Dworkin, female seperatists, and the chick who shot Andy Warhol. Except for some reason (probably because hating female sexuality jived with the pre-feminist western social mores), this one stuck.
Anyway I responded to her little snippet and said that the ad was good because it raised awareness about breast cancer. I dismissed the objectification objection saying that I knew women were more than a pair of tits that talked. A few hours later she sent me a message with a link to
BITCH magazine with the words "this is pretty much what I'm trying to say here."
Bitch Magazine wrote:Sex Sells...Awareness?Share
Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 10:41pm
The ever-brilliant Kate Harding brought this train wreck to my attention via her post on Jezebel:
If you were paying attention, you've learned the important and timeless lesson that a woman should be valued primarily (if not solely) based on her body and sexuality. It's a classic and tired message used in advertising, movies, television, mainstream ladies mags (not to mention 'gentlemen's publications') and so on, but this time, it's got a bit of a spin; it's not used for profit, but rather to raise awareness (and promote the charity organization's Boobyball fundraiser).
I like how they put 'gentlemen's publications' in quote marks, as if women don't ever look at pornography or have magazines such as Playgirl. More tireless attempts to demonise the idea that women could be attractive because that would just play into the hands of men who like attractive women, combined with a reinforcement of victorian social mores (only men look at pornography! Only men think about sex!).
Here's an excerpt from Kate Harding's post, in which she sums up the problematic nature of campaigns like this one:
"This boobtastic Rethink Breast Cancer ad "and a couple more like it," according to the LA Times's Dan Neil, "seem to answer a question that must have nagged breast-cancer-awareness advocates: How to get men to care? With rare exceptions, men don't suffer from breast cancer. The earnest, sad-violins spots invoking moms and grand-moms of the past probably haven't gained much traction among men." Of course not! Why would we ever expect men to care about their moms and grand-moms dying of cancer if the issue isn't marketed to get their attention? (And they say feminists have pathetically low expectations of men.) Says Neil on behalf of Dude Nation, "These ads make the equation explicit: More breast cancer equals fewer awesome breasts. Brilliant. Where do I send my check? The only people who could object to such ads are advocates for other kinds of cancer awareness. "
And this is a bad thing because? Clearly if sad-violin spots worked they'd be using them. You can't just dismiss that something is effective while other parts aren't by saying it's low expectations to expect it to work- it does. Sad Violin Spots don't. If they do, then disprove that.
Setting aside the implication that the average straight male has thus far been too fucking stupid to connect the dots between breast cancer and "fewer awesome breasts" — what was I saying about low expectations? — there's actually a pretty good reason to object to the ads, regardless of any affiliation with other cancer awareness projects. However devastating mastectomies may be, the somewhat larger point here is that breast cancer equals fewer awesome women. And if that point is lost on Dude Nation, the problem is not with the ads, it's with a culture that says women's primary value lies in our sexuality. I mean, seriously, is it even possible to illustrate that any more clearly? Dead human beings of the female persuasion = meh. Lost tits = crisis!"
Again, the canard that somehow the ad is saying women don't matter because it talks about breasts and not women- HINT: When I shout All Hands On Deck do I ask for all sailors to cut off their hands and throw them up the ladder? Willful ignorance about the fact that some things aren't literal statements in order to preserve outrage is disengenuous. And yet again, even the barest suggestion that a woman could be attractive to a man or have sexual characteristics is met with "Woman's primary value = sex", as if that was ever stated. The puerile Puritan crowd of feminists is always quick to make this leap, the same leap that says Porn Is Degrading To Women without actually asking women. If a woman gets a look from a man for being attractive, does she think "He thinks my only value is as a sex object" unless these supposed feminists tell her so?
*sigh*
Of course, ReThink Breast Cancer, the Canadian charity that created this viral video, isn't the first to use sexy boobies in a sad and male-gaze-based
Because sex and males liking women is bad, remember
attempt to get people to care about breast cancer, and more specifically, the loss of said sexy boobies that may accompany it. There's the 14-month-old Ta-tas Brand, which sells women's tees and tanks with phrases like "Caught you lookin' at my ta-tas" and "Save the ta-tas," bro-tastic men's tees reading "Ta-tas are awesome" and "Save a life/grope your wife," and of course kid's tees and baby onesies, so the whole fam can show their support of ta-tas. According to the brand's site, "5% of all sales of ta-tas Brand products will be donated to The Save the Ta-tas Foundation," a 501(c)(3) non-profit which "will continue to support outstanding organizations that lead the way in the fight against cancer."
And this is bad, because? Newsflash: Men refer to breasts in slang. Men like breasts. Men will donate to charity if a charity is witty. Once again the very
scandalous thought that men could possibly have sexual interest in women is spun into "Men
only have sexual interest in women" and "Anyone who therefore reminds people that women have erogenous zones, sexual characteristics, or sexual behavior is turning women into objects of male lust".
A Google search of "save the [insert slang word for breasts here] t-shirt" brings up an impressive variety of apparently for-profit breast cancer awareness tees proclaiming "Squeeze a boob, save a life" and "Support my rack." A couple years back, the breast cancer awareness group at my (Catholic) university encouraged their peers to "Save Second Base." Ya know, because what else are boobs (or women) good for?
Nothing, according to feminists like this. Nobody in these shirts is saying that- it's purely these "feminists" who are making the leap from "Men like breasts and sex from women" to "Men like nothing but breasts and sex from women"
Few would argue against breast cancer awareness, prevention, research and the like. And of course breasts may be a part of a woman's sexuality. But when awareness campaigns such as Rethink Breast Cancer's Save the Boobs reduce cancer to its possible effects on a woman's perceived sex appeal, the result isn't educational, motivational or inspiring. The Save the Boobs campaign may bring in money for a worthy cause, but there are certainly other, less offensive means that could be just as monetarily successful, without reducing women to a pair of "awesome breasts."
It's offensive because, see above, it reminds these women of their cardboard stereotype of men. They think men can only handle liking one aspect of an object, as far as I can tell. None of them realise men can like breasts and like women being sexy while still respecting women. They literally cannot process the idea that a woman can be sexy without being a sex object, or that a man can honestly respect a woman while finding her attractive. Pure Dworkinianism. Something you could almost hear out of the Concerned Women for America, even, in regards to sex.
Ironic for an article that purports to have higher expectations and opinions of men than the ad campaign they're opposed to.
Someday maybe women at large- and I think it's already happening, which is I think why these faux feminists (they are not the real thing, any more than a modern american conservative is for conserving the environment) are getting more and more shrill. Anway,
Someday maybe women at large will realise that the idea of sexual objectification, while a legitimate issue (there are some men who are complete pigs and view women only as sex objects, and there is a danger that the media can focus too much on appearance), is just a canard meant to hold back women from actually accepting being just as sexual as men are in all the same ways, because that wouldn't fit with Puritan and Victorian moral standards forced upon them by society.
It's a cold day in hell when I defend men, which is why the ninth level must be warming up their salt trucks. But I'd rather throw my lot in with men than people whose entire mission is to hijack the idea of female power and turn it into "Female Power, Unless It's About Sex, Then Default Patriarchal Values"
PRFYNAFBTFCP
